H 

MEADE 

4HD x - -- ' - 

769 
°py l 

Before the United States Anthracite 
Coal Commission 


Reply of the 
Anthracite Operators 
to the Demands 
of the 

Anthracite Mine Workers 

Submitted by 

S. D. Warriner 
W. J. Richards 
C. F. Huber 

Representing the Anthracite Operators 


Scranton, Pa. July, 1920 



Before the United States Anthracite 
Coal Commission 

Reply of the 
Anthracite Operators 
to the Demands 
of the 

Anthracite Mine Workers 

Submitted by 

S. D. Warriner 
W. J. Richards 
C. F. Huber 

Representing the Anthracite Operators 


Scranton, Pa. July, 1920 





©f 3. 

N0V 1 * 1 920 




It, * 







♦ 

* • * 




















To the United States Anthracite Coal Commission: 

On March 9, 1920, at a Joint Conference of miners 
and operators, held in New York, preparatory to the 
expiration of the four year agreement which terminated 
March 31, 1920, the miners presented sixteen demands 
as the basis of a new contract. The parties in interest 
appointed four representatives on each side to constitute 
a negotiating committee, to consider these demands and 
report back to the Joint Conference any agreement they 
might be able to reach. The members of this Committee 
were the following: 

FOR THE MINERS — John L. Lewis or Philip Murray. 

John T. Dempsey. 

Thomas Kennedy. 

Chris J. Golden. 


FOR THE OPERATORS— S. D. Warriner. 

W. J. Richards. 

W. L. Connell. 

C. F. Huber. 

After eight weeks of negotiation in New York City 
and after careful examination of the facts and figures 
presented, the operators felt that there was little justifi- 
cation for any increase. Nevertheless, in view of the 
existing unrest, as insurance against further increase in 
the cost of living within the period of the contract, and 
in compromise of existing differences, they offered an 
increase of 15%, to be applied as follows: 

A. The contract rates at each colliery shall be in- 
creased 60% over and above the contract rates at each 
colliery, effective April, 1916, as established by the 
agreement of May 5, 1916. 

B. The day rates of outside company men receiv- 
ing $1,545 or more per day under the agreement of May 
5, 1916, shall be increased 60%, plus $1-20 per day, or 
per shift, above the rates established in said agreement 
of May 5, 1916; it being understood that the increase 
thus made shall be not less than $2.30 or more than 
$2.80 per day or per shift. 

C. The day rates of inside company men receiving 
$1,545 or more per day under the agreement of May 5, 
1916, shall be increased 60%, plus $1.20 per day, or per 
shift, above the rates established in said agreement of 
May 5, 1916; it being understood that the increase thus 
made shall be not less than $2 50 or more than $2.8C 
per day or per shift. 


D. The rates paid consideration miners shall be 
increased 60%, plus $1.20 per day, above the rates 
established under the agreement of May 5, 1916; it be- 
ing understood that the increase thus made shall be not 
more than $2.80 per day. 

E. The rates paid contract miners’ laborers and 
consideration miners’ laborers shall be increased above 
the rates established under the agreement of May 5, 
1916, to the same amount per day as the increase to 
company laborers, at the respective collieries, under 
the provisions of Clause C hereof; it being understood 
that, in the case of contract miners’ labqrers, the miner 
is to assume and pay so much of said increase as shall 
be represented by the application of 60% to the rate 
per basic shift as established under the agreement of 
May 5, 1916, and the difference between said amount 
and the total increase to the contract miners’ laborers 
shall be assumed and paid by the operator. 

F. The day rates paid on machine mining shall be 
increased 60%, plus $1.20 per day, above the rates 
established under the agreement of May 5, 1916; it be- 
ing understood that the increase thus made shall be not 
less than $2.50 or more than $2.80 per day. 

G. All employees paid by the day and receiving 
less than $1,545 per day, or per shift, under the agree- 
ment of May 5, 1916, shall be paid an increase of $1.50 
per day, or per shift, over the rates paid under said 
agreement of May 5, 1916. 

H. Monthly men coming under the agreement of 
May 5, 1916, shall be paid an increase of 60%, plus 
$36.00 per month, over the monthly rates established 
in said agreement of May 5, 1916; it being understood 
that, for outside employees, the increase thus made shall 
be not less than $69.00, or more than $84 00 per month, 
and for inside employees, not less than S75.00, or more 
than $84.00 per month. 

I. The employees of stripping contractors shall 
be paid an increase per day, or per month, correspond- 
ing in amount to the difference between the rates in 
effect March, 1920, and the rates established under this 
agreement for employees of the operators in similar 
occupations at the same colliery. 

J. The employees of tunnel contractors shall come 
within the terms of this agreement and the day rates 
of their employees shall be increased 60%, plus $1.20 
per day, above the rates established under the agree- 
ment of May 5, 1916; it being understood that the in- 
crease thus made shall be not less than $2.50 or more 
than $2.80 per day. 


4 


K. The increases herein provided shall become 
effective April 1, 1920, and where they apply to day 
rates, are to be applied to a day of eight hours or more, 
as established under the agreement of May 5, 1916.” 

The miners rejected this proposition and the oper- 
ators then offered, as an alternative, arbitration by three 
men, representative of the public, who were to "be ap- 
pointed by the President of the United States and to sit 
with the Negotiating* Committee to decide matters in 
dispute. This offer was also rejected. As there was 
every evidence of a disagreement the Secretary of Labor 
invited the Committee to appear before him in 
Washington in the hope that some ground might be 
found for an amicable adjustment of the matters in dis- 
pute. Both sides argued the case before the Secretary 
and were finally asked to accept the following as a basis 
o ; f compromise : 

“THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of May, 
1920, between Districts 1, 7 and 9, United Mine Workers 
of America, parties of the first part, and the Anthracite 
Operators, parties of the second part, covering wages 
and conditions of employment in the Anthracite Coal 
Fields of Pennsylvania, Witnesseth: 

The terms and provisions of the award of the Anth- 
racite Coal Strike Commission and subsequent agree- 
ments made in modification thereof or supplemental 
thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the Board 
of Conciliation, are hereby ratified, confirmed and contin- 
ued for a further period of two years, ending March 31, 
1922, except in the following particulars, to wit: 

A. The contract rates at each colliery shall be in- 
creased 65% over and above the contract rates at each 
colliery, effective April, 1916, as established by the 
agreement of May 5, 1916. 

B. The day rates of outside and inside men, re- 
ceiving $1,545 or more per day under the agreement of 
May 5. 1916, shall be increased 65%, plus $1.20 per 
day, or per shift, above the rates established in said 
agreement of May 5, 1916; it being understood that the 
new rate so established, shall be not less than $4 00 or 
more than $6.00 per day or per shift. 

C. The day rates of employees, receiving less than 
$1,545 per day under the agreement of May 5, 1916, 
shall be increased $1.50 per day, or per shift, above the 
rates established in said agreement of May 5, 1916. 

D. The rates paid contract miners’ laborers and 
consideration miners’ laborers shall be increased above 
the rates established under the agreement of May 5, 
1916, to the same amount per day as the increase to 


o 


company laborers, at the respective collieries, under the 
provisions of Clause B hereof; it being understood that, 
in the case of contract miners’ laborers, the miner is to 
assume and pay so much of said increase as shall be 
represented by the application of 65% to the rate per 
basic shift as established under the agreement of May 
5, 1916, and the difference between said amount and the 
total increase to the contract miners’ laborer shall be 
assumed and paid by the operator. 

E. Monthly men coming under the agreement of 
May 5, 1916, shall be paid an increase of 65%, plus 
$36-00 per month over the monthly rates established in 
said agreement of May 5, 1916; it being understood 
that the increase thus made shall be not less than 
$20.00, or more than $30.00, per calendar month over 
the rates now in effect. 

F. The employees of stripping contractors shall 
be paid an increase per day, or per month, correspond- 
ing in amount to the difference between the rates in 
effect March, 1920, and the rates established under this 
agreement for employees of the operators in similar 
occupations at the same colliery. 

G. The employees of tunnel contractors shall come 
within the terms of this agreement and the day rates 
of their employees shall be increased 65% plus $1.20 
per day, above the rates established under the agree- 
ment of May 5, 1916. 

H. The increases herein provided shall become 
effective April 1, 1920, and where they apply to day 
rates, are to be applied to a day of eight hours or more, 
as established under the agreement of May 5, 1916 


It is understood and agreed that the case of inside 
pumpmen and inside and outside hoisting engineers, 
working a twelve-hour cross shift, shall be referred to 
the Board of Conciliation. The Board shall work out 
a basis of eight-hour shifts and the rates to be paid 
for an eight-hour day. Pending the decision of the 
Board, inside pumpmen and inside and outside hoisting 
engineers working a twelve-hour cross shift shall con- 
tinue on that basis and shall be paid the same increase 
as provided for day men under Clause B hereof. When 
the rates to be paid for an eight-hour day have been 
established by the Board of Conciliation, time in excess 
of eight hours per day shall be paid for at the rate per 
hour established for the eight-hour day. 

It is further understood and agreed that the Board 
of Conciliation shall act as a Commission to make a 
study of, and report to the joint conference at the ex- 


6 


piration of this contract, the matter of uniformity in 
day rates for the several occupations of day men at the 
respective collieries in the anthracite field. 


Contract miners, whose tools are lost through no 
fault of their own as the result of squeezes, cave-ins, 
and similar accidents, shall be furnished with new tools 
by the company, corresponding to the tools lost, with- 
out expense to the miner. 

Whenever contract miners reporting for duty are 
shut out of work through no fault of their own, they 
shall be given the opportunity of working in other 
places, or at other work, at the rate of wages estab- 
lished for such other places, or such other work, if such 
other places or other work are available. 

Whenever deficient or abnormal conditions are en- 
countered in a working place by contract miners, the 
miner or miners affected shall make such fact known 
to the Foreman, and if the Foreman and the men affect- 
ed are unable to agree, it shall be referred to the griev- 
ance committee and dealt with in the manner provided 
for other grievances. Work shall be continued pend- 
ing the adjustment unless otherwise directed by the 
Foreman, and whatever decision is made shall be retro- 
active to the date upon which the grievance was raised. 

On behalf of the On behalf of the 

Anthracite Operators United Mine Workers 

of America. 


Attest : 


President District No. 1 


President District No. 7 


President District No. 9 


President. 


Chairman. 


Secretary.” 

7 


The operators concurred, hut the miners, through 
their scale committee, rejected the Secretary's recom- 
mendation. Thereupon the Secretary addressed a letter 
to the President, briefly outlining the situation, and 
stating that the basis of compromise he had proposed, 
namely, $4.00 per day to men who had received $1.50 
per day in 1914 and $6.00 per day to men who had received 
$3.00 per day in 1914 was as far as he could go and justify 
his position. In this letter he asked Presidential authority 
to say that there must be no cessation of work and that 
in case of final disagreement the matters at issue must 
be submitted to arbitration. 

Upon receipt of an affirmative reply the Secretary 
referred the matter once more to the Negotiating Com- 
mittee and the mine workers decided to refer the entire 
matter to a tri-district convention, to be held in Wilkes- 
Barre. The convention endorsed the action of the scale 
committee in rejecting the Secretary’s offer, and decided 
to refer the matters at issue to arbitration. Thereupon the 
President issued the following Proclamation : 

“BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

WHEREAS, the wage scale of the anthracite coal 
operators and miners expired on March 31, 1920; and 

WHEREAS, the operators’ and miners’ wage scale 
committee has been in conference since early in March in 
an effort to negotiate a new wage scale; and 

WHEREAS, the committee agreed at the beginning 
of its sessions that any agreement finally arrived at 
would become retroactive to the first of April, 1920; and 

WHEREAS, I addressed a communication to the 
scale committee on May 21, 1920, when a disagreement 
was imminent, in which I said that if the scale committee 
was unable to reach an agreement I would ‘insist that 
the matters in dispute be submitted to the determina- 
tion of a commission to be appointed by me, the award 
of the commission to be retroactive to the first of April 
in accordance with the arrangement you have already 
entered into, and that work be continued at the mines 
pending the decision of the commission. I shall hold 


8 


myself in readiness to appoint a commission similarly 
constituted to the one I recently appointed in connection 
with the bituminous coal mining industry as soon as I 
learn that both sides have signified their willingness 
to continue at work and abide by its decisions’; and 

WHEREAS, the scale committee has further agreed 
as follows: 

‘(1) The terms and provisions of the award of the 
Anthracite Coal Strike Commission and subsequent 
agreements made in modification thereof or supplemen- 
tal thereto, as well as the rulings and decisions of the 
Board of Conciliation, will be ratified and continued, 
excepting in so far as they may be changed by the 
award of the commission. 

‘(2) When the award of the commission is made 
it will be written into an agreement between the anthra- 
cite operators and miners in such manner as the com- 
mission may determine. 

‘(3) It is understood that neither operators nor 
miners are in any manner bound by any tentative sug- 
gestions that have been made during the period of their 
negotiations and that either side shall use its own dis- 
cretion in the presentation of its case in connection with 
matters at issue’; 

NOW THEREFORE, I, Woodrow Wilson, President 
of the United States, hereby appoint William O. Thomp- 
son, of Columbus, Ohio; Neal J. Ferry, of McAdoo, 
Pennsylvania, and William L. Connell, of Scranton, 
Pennsylvania, a Commission to hear and decide the ques- 
tions in dispute between the anthracite coal operators 
and miners. Its report will be made within sixty days 
if possible, will be retroactive to April 1, 1920, and will 
be made the basis of a new wage agreement between the 
anthracite operators and miners in such manner as the 
Commission may determine. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand and caused the seal of the United States to be 
affixed. 

DONE in the District of Columbia this 3d day of 
June, in the year of our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and 
Twenty, and of the Independence of the United States 
the One Hundred and forty-fourth. 

WOODROW WILSON. 


(SEAL) 

By the President: 

Bainbridge Colby, 

Secretary of State.” 

9 


ihe questions in dispute are embodied in the follow- 
ing eighteen demands : 

(1) We demand that the next contract be for a 
period not exceeding two (2) years and that the making 
of individual agreements and contracts in the mining of 
coal shall be prohibited. 

(2) W T e demand that the present wages of the 
Anthracite mine workers be increased to correspond to 
the increases granted the Bituminous mine workers by 
the Presidential Coal Commission. 

(3) W^e demand that a uniform wage scale be es- 
tablished so that the various occupations of like char- 
acter at the several collieries shall command the same 
wage. 

(4) We demand that shovel crews operating for 
coal companies shall be paid not less than the rates 
paid by contractors to shovel men. 

(5) We demand that the eight hour day be ex- 
tended to all classes of inside and outside day labor 
and monthly men with time and half-time for overtime 
and double time for Sundays and holidays. 

(6) W 7 e demand a closed shop contract which 
means full recognition of the United Mine Workers of 
America as a party to the Agreement- 

(7) We demand that all deadwork shall be paid for 
on the consideration basis, existing at the colliery, and 
that where more than one miner is employed they shall 
receive the same rate. 

(8) We demand payment for all sheet iron, props, 
timber, forepolling and cribbing. 

(9) We demand where miners are prevented from 
working on account of lack of supplies that they shall 
be accorded the opportunity of making a shift at some 
other work. 

(10) We demand in the settlement of grievances 
that the aggrieved parties shall have the right to de- 
mand settlement, upon a basis of equity, and if such 
equity settlement is requested the conditions of 1902 
shall not enter into or prejudice the case. 

(11) We demand that a uniform rate of $.17 per 
inch be paid for all refuse in all kinds of mining up to 

10 


ten feet wide, and a proportional rate be applied for 
all over ten feet. 

(12) We demand that wherever miners are now 
paid on the car basis that hereafter they shall be paid 
on the legal ton basis and that dockage shall be elimi- 
nated. 

(13) We demand that on all reel motors one motor- 
man and two brakemen be employed and that on all 
other motors and engines assistants or patchers be em- 
ployed, and that when motormen or engineers are re- 
pairing their motors or engines that their assistants 
shall be employed to help in the work. 

(14) We demand that for all tools lost through no 
fault of employees as a result of squeezes, water or 
fire, the men to be compensated for such losses. 

(15) Where contract miners are employed doing 
company work the company shall supply them with the 
necessary tools and failing to do so shall compensate the 
miners by paying each miner not less than one extra 
hour per day for the use of such tools. 

(16) We demand that the company shall supply to 
all company men the necessary tools free of charge. 

(17) We demand that checkweiglimen and check 
docking bosses be permitted to serve as members of 
mine committees. 

(18) We demand that where contract miners en- 
counter abnormal conditions in their working places they 
shall have the privilege of going on consideration work. 

A definition of consideration work shall be written into 
the agreement. 

In his opening address Mr. Murray stated that, of 
the eighteen demands made by the mine workers, there 
were four of major importance, to wit : — 

“1. Eight hour day for those occupations which are 
based on a longer workday, such as engineers^ pump- 
men, stablemen, etc.” 

“2. Standardization of rates of pay for the same 
work, throughout the field.” 

“3. The same increases in rates of pay as were 
granted to soft coal mine workers by the President’s 
Bituminous Coal Commission, by its award of March 
19, 1920. This demand involves the following increases: 


11 


(a) The establishment for all adult male workers 
who are now receiving iess than five dollars a day a rate 
of six dollars per day. 

(b) An increase of one dollar per day to all adult 
male workers who are now being paid five dollars or 
more than five dollars a day. 

(c) Workers paid on a monthly basis to receive an 
increase proportionate to their rate per day computed 
on the basis of the number of days worked per month. 

(d) Boys who are now receiving less than men’s 
wages, to be advanced 53 cents per day.” 

“4. Formal recognition of the United Mine Work- 
ers of America, the award of this Commission to be writ- 
ten into an agreement to be signed by representatives 
of the operators and of the United Mine Workers of 
America.” 

The foregoing explanation constitutes an entirely 
new interpretation of the wage demand, and involves an 
increase greatly in excess of any claim heretofore made. 
It is intimated that if this demand is granted, the same 
increases will be awarded to the anthracite workers as 
were awarded to the bituminous workers by the Presi- 
dent’s Bitumino/us Commission. Its award reads as 
follows : 

“F. That ail day labor and monthly men (the ad- 
vance to monthly men to be based on an average of the 
usual number of days he is required to work in a month), 
except trappers and other boys, be advanced $1.00 per 
day. Trappers and boys receiving less than men’s wages 
to be advanced 53 cents per day.” 

This award did not establish a $6.00 per day minimum 
in the bituminous field as claimed. Mr. Murray later tried 
to explain this inaccuracy, but it was done in a wav that 
left the meaning quite obscure. Furthermore, in this ex- 
planation, he makes the unqualified statement that six 
dollars per day is “the minimum day rate in the bitumin- 
ous coal mining areas.” The operators challenge this 
statement as inaccurate and not in accord with the 
facts. 

The demands presented by the miners to this Com- 
mission embody, in substance, what was presented to 
the Joint Conference, except that the original demand for 
a 60% increase in the contract wage scales and a $2.00 

12 


per day increase to day men has been modified to read, 
“an increase to correspond to the increases granted the 
bituminous mine workers by the Presidential Coal Com- 
mission/’ Also, the demand for a 6-hour day and a 5-day 
week has been modified to read, “that the 8-hour day be 
extended to all classes of inside and outside day labor 
and monthly men/’ 

When, in the conferences of the Negotiating Com- 
mittee, the wage demand was modified to an increase 
to correspond to that granted the bituminous workers 
by the Presidential Coal Commission, the mine workers 
then stated that it contemplated an increase of 27% to 
contract miners and $1.00 per day to day workers. This 
Commission has now before it identically the same de- 
mand, written in exactly the same words, but with a new 
interpretation — namely, that it means an increase of 31% 
to contract miners and a minimum rate of $6.00 per day 
to day workers. The operators again challenge the ac- 
curacy of this interpretation of the bituminous award. 

It is quite pertinent to ask that the Commission in- 
quire most carefully into the supporting data for a de- 
mand that has been subject to so many changes and to 
such varied interpretations. 

The establishment of a minimum rate of $6.00 per 
day to day workers would give common labor an increase 
of approximately 75% over the rates now in effect and 
nearly 300% over the pre-war rates. It would give to labor 
of this class 75 cents per hour, as compared to an average 
rate of 45 cents per hour now being paid to the same 
labor in other industries.. It would give to labor of this 
class practically the same rate as is now being paid to the 
highest skilled labor in industrial establishments in the 
eastern portion of the United States. 

The lowest day rate for adult labor is now $3.35 per 
day. The mine workers propose that this labor shall 
be increased to $6.00 per day, an increase of 80% over its 
present rate and 300% over its pre-war rate of $1.50 per 
day. They likewise propose that day labor now receiving 
$5.00 per day shall be increased $1.00 per day, making the 
new rate $6.00 per day, an increase of 20% over present 
rates and 106% over the pre-war rate. 

As $3.35 and $5.00 represent generally, the minimum 
and maximum rates paid to day labor, it follows that 
under the scale they propose practically all day workers 
would receive $6.00 per day. In a word, the existing dif- 

13 


ferentials that have been established as a reward for 
greater skill and efficiency are to be entirely wiped out 
and everyone is to receive the same, irrespective of the 
character of the employment. 

We can not conceive that any plan embodying the 
principle of equal pay to all classes of day labor, regard- 
less of skill and training, will give satisfaction to our 
employees or will receive serious consideration on the 
part of this Commission. 

In this reply, the operators will confine their discus- 
sion to the eighteen demand's as drafted by the tri-district 
convention, as presented by Mr. Murray, and as explained 
by Messrs. Dempsey, Kennedy and Golden. The effort 
will be to give this Commission only essential facts bear- 
ing on these particular demands, which are the only mat- 
ters before the Commission for its consideration and 
decision. 


DEMAND NO. 1 

“(1) We demand that the next contract be for a 
period not exceeding two (2) years and that the making 
of individual agreements and contracts in the mining of 
coal shall be prohibited.” 

So far as the term of the contract is concerned, the 
operators agree to a two-year period. 

As to the abrogation of individual contracts in the 
mining of coal, the same demand was made by the mine 
workers in 1912 and adjusted by the following clause in 
the agreement of May 20, 1912: 

“(c) There shall be an equitable division of mine 
cars, as set forth in the award of the Anthracite Coal 
Strike Commission and the decisions of the Concilia- 
tion Board; and further, the rates paid by any con- 
tract miner to his employees shall not be less than the 
standard rate for that particular class of work.” 

Under this agreement the miners are amply pro- 
tected against discrimination both in the distribution of 
cars and in the rates of pay. At the same time, the 
operator may exercise ifull authority as to mining meth- 
ods which, in his judgment, are necessary to provide for 
the safety of the employees and to secure efficiency in 
production. The argument of the mine workers can be 


14 


interpreted only as indicating a determination to limit the 
opportunity and earning capacity of the individual. 

The practice of contracting a section of a vein, or 
a particular opening, to one man, who in turn employs 
his help, is a practice that has been in effect for a great 
many years. It has particular merit where the conditions 
involve removal of pillar coal or other conditions of min- 
ing not common to t .e average seam and where excep- 
tional skill and supervision are required. The contention 
of the miners is that one man benefits by the labor of oth- 
ers and that the men employed earn less than if employed 
on separate contracts. To this the operators reply that 
the condition that obtains is no different from that of a 
contractor in any other industry employing a num- 
ber of men and that the men employed by the con- 
tractor can secure individual contracts in other sections 
if they so desire. The fact is that many men prefer to 
work at a fixed rate per day instead of a contract, or 
piece-work basis and that it has always been possible 
to find men anxious and willing to work for contractors 
at the rates established and paid. The argument that 
“the worker is being exploited,” that the mine workers 
demand “equal rights to all and special privileges to 
none,” is simply rhetoric. The workers are not exploited 
any more than any man, working for another, is ex- 
ploited. Under the agreement of 1912 they are paid rates 
not below the established colliery scale and, in many in- 
stances the rates paid are higher than the colliery scale. 
They are not compelled to work for a contractor, but do 
so of their own free choice and for reasons already indi- 
cated. Under the circumstances there is no sound argu- 
ment for abrogation of a system of mining that has been 
in effect a great many years and which has resulted in 
promoting safety, efficiency and maximum production 
under the conditions to which the system is applied. 

DEMAND NO. 2 

“(2) We demand that the present wages of the 
Anthracite mine workers be increased to correspond to 
the increases granted the Bituminous mine workers by 
the Presidential Coal Commission.” 

The demand to make an increase in wages to cor- 
respond to the increase granted bituminous workers 
must be considered in the light of conditions in the two 
industries. For, if conditions differ, then this demand 


is based on a false premise and a scale of wages thus 
established would be manifestly unfair. 

The conditions of employment and the opportunity 
for employment differ so widely in the two industries that 
one is not comparable with the other. Anthracite is not 
only mined, but, after it is mined, passes through a breaker 
where it is screened into nine sizes, passed to jigs or 
mechanical separators for removal of refuse, and is then 
loaded for market. The underground operation of an 
anthracite mine requires vastly more maintenance, 
pumping, etc., than a bituminous mine. As a result of 
this situation only about one-third of the men employed in 
the anthracite industry are engaged in cutting and 
loading coal, while in the bituminous industry two- 
thirds of the total are thus employed. 

In the matter of working-time, or opportunity for 
employment, the two industries have been gradually 
drifting apart until today the anthracite is on prac- 
tically a full-time basis, as compared to 200 days per 
year in the bituminous. 

It tollows that neither in conditions of employ- 
ment, nor in opportunity for work, are the two 
industries analogous, and there is therefore no sound 
reason why an advance awarded the bituminous worker 
should constitute a basis for adjustment of wages in 
the anthracite field. The anthracite industry is quite 
willing to compare the annual earning capacity of its 
employees with the earnings of those employed in the 
bituminous industry; for it will be shown that the 
anthracite worker, under present wage scales, is earning 
more per annum than the bituminous worker with the 
increase granted by the President’s Commission. 

The question as to whether rates in the anthracite 
industry are fair and equitable must be determined with 
full appreciation of the following elements : 

1. Opportunity for continuous employment. 

2. Annual earning capacity. 

3. Increase in annual earning capacity, 1914 to 1919, 
as compared to the increase in cost of living. 

4. Daily wage. 

16 


5. Comparison of rates in effect with rates paid in 
occupations requiring like -skill in other indus- 
tries. 

To the worker a daily rate has little significance un- 
less he be given the opportunity to earn it. The present 
condition in the bituminous industry furnishes a striking 
illustration. It has been well depicted by Commissioner 
Colver of the Federal Trade Commission in a statement 
made on June 29, in which he said : 

“The coal mines are being allotted only 15% of the 
cars which are needed. * * * Coal miners who 

nominally receive a wage so high as to seem unheard 
of, are able to work only one day a week and see their 
families go hungry.” 

With reference to the opportunity for continuous 
employment, tabulation is submitted showing days 
worked in the anthracite field and the bituminous field 
in the past ten years : 


Year 

Anthracite 

9-hr. days 

Anthracite 

Equivalent 

8-hr. 

Bituminous 

Central 

Competitive 

Field 

Bituminous 

All 

Fields 

U. S. 

1910 

229 

258 

219 

217 

1911 

248 

277 

210 

211 

1912 

231 

260 

224 

223 

1913 

257 

289 

233 

232 

1914 

245 

276 

184 

195 

1915 

230 

259 

198 

203 

1916 


**263 Avg. 269 

228 Avg. 214 

230 Avg. 210 

1917 


285 

244 

243 

1918 


293 

250 

249 

1919 


273 Avg. 284 

201 Avg. 232 

*201 Avg. 231 


**9-hour day January to April; 8-hour day May to December. 

*Estimated — Report of President’s Bituminous Commis- 
sion gives 193 days. 

From the foregoing it will be noted that on a basis 
of equivalent hours per day the working time in the 
anthracite field in the period 1910 to 1916 was 55 days, 
or 25%, more than the central competitive field and the 
same percentage more than the bituminous fields of the 
country as a whole ; and that in the period 1917 to 1919 it 
was 52 days, or 22%, more than the central competitive 

17 


field and the same percentage more than the bituminous 
fields as a whole. It will therefore be noted that war 
conditions made little change in the relative situation. 
But taking the post-war condition, namely, 1919, the 
figures show that the anthracite mines have worked 72 
days, or 36% more than the bituminous. 

It is therefore clearly apparent that the anthracite 
industry is on a basis of full time production. There has 
been much argument on the part of the anthracite work- 
ers that this was not the case, that the conditions that ob- 
tained in the past few years were abnormal and that there 
would be a return to pre-war conditions, with a material 
reduction in working time. It is to be assumed that the 
demand will be as great in the years to come as, in years 
gone by, plus an increase which is bound to ensue with 
the normal growth in population. Therefore, if it is a 
fact that the production of domestic sizes per annum 
has shown little increase in the period 1916 to 1919 as 
compared to the period 1912 to 1915, it must follow that 
supply has only met demand and that the working time 
necessary to produce the tonnage in the past few years 
reflected a normal, and not an abnormal, condition. The 
situation is reflected in the following tabulation showing 
domestic and steam sizes in the period named : 


Year 

Prepared and Pea 
(tons) 

Steam Sizes 
(tons) 

1912 

45,678,201 

17,932,377 

1913 

60,594,305 

18,475,323 

1914 

49,998,507 

18,344,094 

1915 

48,944,747 Avg. 48,803,940 

18,939,029 

1916 

48,245,724 

19,130,640 

1917 

63,487,277 

23,646,028 

1918 

51,974,714 

24,676,204 

1919 

48,991,572 Avg. 60,674,822 

17,863,739 


From the foregoing it will be noted that the pro- 
duction of prepared and pea sizes has increased only 
3.8% in the four years 1916 to 1919, as compared to the 
period 1912 to 1915, or an increase of less than 1% per 
annum. 


In the coal year from April 1, 1919, to March 31, 
1920, the anthracite industry offered steady employment 

18 


and no time was lost except that lost voluntarily by 
the employee, or because of some interference with ope- 
ration beyond the producers’ control. Car shortage and 
no market were not factors in the situation, for there 
was practically a 100 per cent, car supply and there was a 
market for every ton of coal that could be produced. 

The anthracite industry has always predicated its 
working time on the market ifor prepared sizes. The 
steam sizes have never been a factor in determining days 
worked ; for if the market would not absorb the total 
production of these sizes, the excess was stocked either 
at the collieries or in the storage yards. This is an im- 
portant factor in consideration of the issues before us ; 
for if the production of prepared sizes, with the mines 
working every day, will give only the necessary tonnage 
to meet the country’s needs, then the anthracite in- 
dustry is on a full-time basis. 

The average annual production of prepared sizes in 
the four years 1912 to 1915 was 48,803,940 tons. In the 
year 1919, with 273 working days, the production was 
48,991,572 tons. It will therefore be noted that produc- 
tion has not increased and that with a proper allowance 
for increased population and increased demand, it will 
be necessary to work more than 273 days in 1920; in 
fact, in the light of the experience of the past coal year, 
it will be necessary to have full-time operation to supply 
the demand, for there was a market for all coal that 
could be produced in the coal year ending March 31, 1920. 

The mine workers have offered certain exhibits pur- 
porting to show days worked, opportunity for employ- 
ment, earnings of anthracite employees, etc., in which 
appear certain tabulations and conclusions. The attention 
of the Commission is directed to the fact that in all of 
these exhibits the working time for the year 1919 is given 
as 252 days. This was one of the first points in contro- 
versy during the negotiations and the mine workers then 
stated that this figure had been obtained from a statement 
of Mr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States 
Geological Survey. As the figures of the large operating 
companies, producing about 80% of the total anthracite 
tonnage, showed 281 starts and 273 eight-hour days of 
breaker operation the operators inquired Off the Survey, 
in What manner it had arrived at 252 days as the working 

19 


time in the anthracite field in 1919. In reply they received 
the following : — 

“DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 
WASHINGTON 

Division of Mineral Resources 

March 18, 1920. 


Mr. Edward W. Parker, Director, 

The Anthracite Bureau of Information, 

No. 437 Chestnut Street, 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

My Dear Mr. Parker: 

Referring to our telephone conversation, today, con- 
cerning the number of days worked in the anthracite 
mines of Pennsylvania during 1919: 

For the purpose of incidental comparison with the 
figures presented for the bituminous mines in the paper 
delivered by the Director at the February Meeting of 
of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, an esti- 
mate of 252 days worked in 1919 was used for anthra- 
cite mining. The method by which this estimate was 
obtained is as follows: 

In the absence of changes in the number of men or 
of the productivity per man per day, the number of days 
worked in 1919 should bear the same relation to the 
number of days worked in 1918 as the figures of total 
production for the two years. The proportion might be 
stated 98,826,000 tons in 1918 is to 86,200,000 tons in 
1919 as 293 days is to 256 days. Comparing the 
years 1917 and 1919, the figures of days worked for the 
latter year would be 247. The two estimates thus ob- 
tained — 256 days and 247 days — were averaged and the 
result, 252 days, was accepted as a rough measure of 
the days worked in 1919. 

As pointed out by you, any significant change in 
either the number of men employed or the average pro- 
ductivity per man per day would invalidate this esti- 
mate. 

If you are in possession of actual returns you will 
be much better able to arrive at a temporary conclusion 
than is the Geological Survey, at the present time. 

Yours very truly, 

F. G. TRYON, 

Acting in Charge of Coal and Coke Statistics.” 


20 


It will be noted that 252 days was simply an esti- 
mate, theoretically deduced from certain factors ; and it 
will further be noted that the method employed failed to 
take into account the fact that the years 1917 and 1918 
included a large tonnage from culm banks, whereas there 
was comparatively little culm bank tonnage in 1919. The 
result was that the computation produced a result entirely 
at variance with the facts. 

All of the foregoing was made a matter of record 
during the negotiations. Yet Mr. Lauck presents to the 
consideration of this Commission exhibits showing days 
worked, earnings of anthracite workers, etc., in which the 
erroneous figure of 252 days is one of the controlling fac- 
tors and exerts a most vital influence in the results shown 
and the conclusions drawn therefrom. 

In the matter of annual earning capacity the opera- 
tors have summarized from the pay-rolls of nine com- 
panies, producing about 75% of the total anthracite out- 
put, the earnings of all employees whose names appeared 
in each semi-monthly pay period in the years 1914 and 
1919, classified as to occupations. The figures shown rep- 
resent the actual amount received, on the average, by the 
employee in each occupation, in each year ; and in the case 
of contract miners, the amount received after deduction 
for powder and other supplies purchased from the opera- 
tor and used in the conduct of the work. 


21 


AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS OF ANTHRACITE EM- 
PLOYEES WORKING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 1919 
COMPARED WITH EARNINGS IN THE SAME 
OCCUPATIONS IN THE YEAR 1914. 



Earnings 
Year 1914 

Earnings 
Year 191S 

P. C. Inc. 
• Over 1914 

No. of 
i Men 

CONTRACT MINERS . . . 

$820 

$1719 

109.6 

13467 

INSIDE DAY MEN: 





Blacksmiths 

$737 

$1565 

112.3 

55 

Bratticemen 

667 

1342 

101.2 

477 

Carpenters 

754 

1577 

109.2 

38 

Culmmen 

807 

1520 

88.4 

55 

Drivers 

493 

1157 

134.7 

897 

Engineers — Locomotive 

724 

1471 

103.2 

666 

Engineers — Slope 

671 

1384 

106.3 

338 

Headmen and Footmen. 

601 

1380 

129.6 

754 

Machinists 

880 

1699 

93.1 

49 

Masons 

645 

1281 

98.6 

136 

Company Miners 

698 

1365 

95.6 

1061 

Company Laborers .... 

549 

1259 

129.3 

3673 

Pipemen 

796 

1539 

93.6 

26 

Pulleymen 

646 

1339 

107.3 

36 

Pumpmen 

829 

1727 

108.3 

467 

Car Runners 

643 

1219 

124.5 

647 

Shaftmen 

971 

1683 

73.3 

42 

Stablemen 

779 

1657 

99.9 

117 

Timbermen 

601 

1379 

129.5 

295 

Tracklayers 

671 

1398 

108.3 

612 

Average Inside Day Men, • . 

$615 

$1334 

116.9 

10441 

OUTSIDE DAY MEN: 





Blacksmiths 

$818 

$1667 

103.8 

269 

Carpenters 

761 

1595 

109.6 

943 

Engineers — Shaft 

964 

1760 

82.6 

491 

Engineers — Tower 

871 

1673 

92.1 

12 

Engineers — Slope 

797 

1575 

97.6 

414 

Engineers — Pow. House 

907 

1645 

81.4 

96 

Engineers — Breaker . . . 

830 

1654 

99.3 

96 

Engineers — Fan 

724 

1557 

115.1 

120 

Engineers — Locomotive 

821 

1636 

99.3 

243 

Firemen 

719 

1511 

110.2 

1049 

Headmen and Footmen. 

546 

1267 

132.1 

375 

Laborers 

524 

1264 

141.2 

4467 

Loaders 

543 

1226 

125.8 

478 

Machinists 

851 

1679 

97.3 

387 

Pumpmen 

729 

1579 

116.6 

45 

Stablemen 

757 

1494 

97.4 

91 

Teamsters 

588 

1398 

137.8 

148 

Timber Cutters 

527 

1264 

139.8 

236 

Tracklayers 

666 

1354 

103.3 

114 

Average Outside Day Men . 

$643 

$1409 

119.1 

10074 

Average All Occupations. . 1 

$705 

$1509 

114.0 

33982 


22 


From the foregoing it will be noted that the average 
annual earning capacity oif adult employees in the indus- 
try was $1509 per annum, or an increase of 114% over the 
year 1914; and that in very few occupations has the in- 
crease been less than 95% which the miners have so forci- 
bly contended throughout our negotiations represents the 
increase in the cost of living within the five year period. 
In fact, the figures show that not only have increased 
earnings compensated for the increase in the cost of liv- 
ing, but there has been an increased opportunity to save, 
as evidenced by the savings deposits of the several banks 
in the anthracite field. From data collected by the 
Luzerne County National Bank, of Wilkes-Barre, is sub- 
mitted the 'following : 


GROWTH OF BANK DEPOSITS IN THE ANTHRACITE COAL FIELDS 
OF PENNSYLVANIA, YEARS 1916-1920 



No. 

of 

Bankt 

Savings Deposits 
Jan. 1, 1916 

Savings Deposits 
Jan. 1, 1920 

Increase 
Over 1916 

Per 

Cent 

Hazleton Region 

9 

$ 9,754,678.84 

$ 15,173,598.79 

$ 5,418,919.95 

56 

Lykens Region 

7 

946,825.95 

1,638,622.87 

691,796.92 

73 

Wilkes-Barre City 

12 

20,176,449.19 

27,341,979-11 

7,165,529.92 

36 

Wyo. Val. Local Towns 

16 

14,590,880.21 

23,453,450.51 

8,862,570.30 

61 

Scranton City 

18 

32,632,874.71 

42,127,999.63 

9,495,124.92 

29 

Lacka. Val. Loc. Towns 

18 

11,181,143.20 

16,938,734.77 

5,757,591.57 

51 

Southern Field 

28 

10,324,955.98 

17,653,327.19 

7,328,371.21 

71 

Western Field 

22 

9,240,445.29 

17,157,102.22 

7,916,656.93 

86 

Grand Total 

130 

$108,848,253.37 

$161,484,815.09 

$52,636,561.72 

48 


[A detailed statement is submitted as a separate exhibit.] 


The operators contend that average earnings of 
$1509 per annum compare favorably with the average 
annual earnings of employees in other basic in- 
dustries. The contention of the mine workers is that, 
in order to secure these annual earnings it has been 
necessary that men work every day and overtime on 
some days, and that the figures submitted indicate that 
this has been the condition. While it may be true that 
in some occupations the earnings indicate full time and 
overtime on the basic 8-hour day, the fact remains that 
in practically no case do the earnings show overtime of 
more than one hour per day, on the average, for full time 
work. The fact that the men have been able to secure 
this steady employment is the best evidence of the op- 
portunity that the industry affords. 

23 


In the matter of increase in the cost of living the 
mine workers have presented an exhibit which shows : 



Dec. 1919 

May 1920 


over 

over 


Dec. 1914 

Dec. 1914 

United States Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 

95.0% 

104.0% 


March 1920 

April 1920 


over 

over 


June 1915 

June 1915 

National Industrial Conference 

Board.. 94.8% 

96.6% 

Massachusetts Commission on the Neces- 

April 1920 
over 

Dec. 1914 

saries of Life 


92.3% 


In the negotiations the mine workers contended that 
the increase in the cost of living was 95% as compared 
to 1914 and that the wage demand was largely predicated 
on this increase. They now argue that the increase is 
104%, and it is interesting to note the basis of this claim. 
On page 5, Exhibit No. 8, referring to the 95% and 104% 
increase shown in the table and purporting to be statistics 
compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor, appears 
the following footnote : 

“(1) Estimates: increase between December, 1919, 
and May, 1920, being estimated as 5 per cent- from 
price increases shown in later sections.” 

It will thus be seen that the 104% is based on no 
actual study but is an estimate which the footnote says is 
based on price increases shown later in Exhibit No. 8. 
No method by which this estimate is obtained is fur- 
nished and even if it were the operators cannot see any 
justification for drawing general conclusions from such 
insufficient and hypothetical data. 

The latest authoritative data we have been able to 
find on the subject of the cost of living is that prepared 
by the National Industrial Conference Board in its Re- 
search Report No. 28, May 1920, in which appears the 
following : 


24 


TABLE 7: PERCENTAGES OF INCREASE IN THE COST 
OF LIVING IN AVERAGE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, 
BETWEEN JULY, 1914, AND MARCH, 1920, BY SEPAR- 
ATE BUDGET ITEMS 

(National Industrial Conference Board) 


Percentages of increase between 


Budget item 

July, 1914, and 
July. 1915 

July, 1914, and 
July, 1916 

July, 1914, and 
July, 1917 

July, 1914, and 

June, 1918 

July, 1914, and 

Nov., 1918 

July, 1914, and 

March, 1919 

July, 1914, and 

July, 1919 

July, 1914, and 

Nov., 1919 

July, 1914, and 

March, 1920 

All items (a) . . 

.5 

8-7 

|31.3 

52.2 

65.0 

60.5 

72.2 

82.2 

94.8 

Food 

b 

11 

46 

62 

83 

75 

90 

92 

100 

Shelter 

b 

1.5 

5 

15 

20 

22 

28 

38 

49 

Clothing . ... 
Fuel, heat 

3 

20 

43 

77 

93 

81 

100 

135 

177 

and light . . 

2 

4 

26 

35 

40 

42 

42 

48 

49 

Sundries 

b 

4 

17 

50 

55 

55 

63 

75 

83 


(a) Weighted. 

(b) No change. 

These figures are averages for the country as a whole and 
in applying them to any specific community, local conditions 
should always be taken into account. Unless, how T ever, local 
conditions are very unusual, as, for example, where there have 
been very large or very small rent increases or where prices of 
the other items have increased much more or much less than 
the average allowed, it will be found that the cost of living 
advanced approximately 95% between July, 1914, and March, 
1920* 

It is interesting to note that at the time of the last 
wage adjustment in the anthracite field in November, 
1918, the increase in the cost of living was 65.0% and, in 
March, 1920, was 94.8% over 1914. By dividing the index 
number 165 into the difference between the increase of 
65.0% in November, 1918, and the increase of 94.8% in 
March, 1920, it is found that the increase in March, 1920. 
was 18% over November, 1918. However, in November, 
1918, wages were adjusted to a basis far in excess of the 
increase in the cost of living at that time, and therefore 
the increase between November, 1918, and March, 1920, 
furnishes no sound argument for a further increase in 
wages in the anthracite industry. 

Without prejudice to the contention that annual and 
not daily earnings should be the real criterion of whether 
wages are adequate or inadequate, there is set forth be- 
low a comparison of the daily rates of compensation in 
1914 and 1919 and the relation of the increase in daily 
rate to a 95% increase in the cost of living. 

25 


TABULATION SHOWING INCREASE IN DAY V/AGE RATE 1914-1919 
AND COMPARISON OF INCREASE WITH A 95% INCREASE 
IN THE COST OF LIVING 


1914 

Rate 

1916 

Rate 

War 

Allowance 

Present 

Rate 

Per Cent 
Increase 
Present Rate 
Over 1914 

Excess or Defici- 

ency on 1914 Rate 
as Compared to 
95% Increase in 
the Cost of Living 

Excess or Deficiency in 

Percentage of Present 
Rate at Compared to 
95% Increase in the 
Cost of Living 

CONTRACT MINER 

$3.40 

1 


$6.54 

92.4 

2.6 

1 ° 

1 .O 

OUTSIDE DAY MEN 


$1.50 

$1.55 

$1.80 

$3.35 

123.3 

28.3 

12.7 

1.60 

1.65 

1.80 

3.45 

115.6 

20.6 

9.6 

1.70 

1.75 

1.80 

3.55 

108.8 

13.8 

6.6 

1.80 

1.85 

1.80 

3.65 

102.8 

7.8 

3.8 

1.90 

1.96 

1.80 

3.76 

97.9 

2.9 

1.5 

2.00 

2.06 

1.80 

3.86 

93.0 

2.0 

1.0 

2.10 

2.16 

1.80 

3.96 

88.6 

6.4 

3.4 

2.20 

2.27 

1.80 

4.07 

85.0 

10.0 

5.4 

2.30 

2.37 

1.80 

4.17 

81.3 

13.7 

7.6 

2.40 

2.47 

2.00 

4.47 

86.2 

8.8 

4.7 

2.50 

2.58 

2.00 

4.58 

83.2 

11.8 

6.4 

2.60 

2.68 

2.00 

4.68 

80.0 

15.0 

8.3 

2.70 

2.78 

2.00 

4.78 

77.0 

18.0 

10.2 

2.80 

2.88 

2.00 

4.88 

74.3 

20.7 

11.9 

2.90 

2.99 

2.00 

4.99 

72.1 

22.9 

13.3 

3.00 

3.09 

2.00 

5.09 

69.7 

25.3 

14.9 


INSIDE DAY MEN 


$1.50 

$1.55 

$2.00 

$3.55 

136.6 

41.6 

17.6 

1.60 

1.65 

2.00 

3.65 

128.1 

33.1 

14.5 

1.70 

1.75 

2.00 

3.75 

120.6 

25.6 

11.6 

1.80 

1.85 

2.00 

3.85 

113.9 

18.9 

8.4 

1.90 

1.96 

2.00 

3.96 

108.4 

13.4 

6.4 

2.00 

2.06 

2.00 

4.06 

103.0 

8.0 

3.9 

2.10 

2.16 

2.00 

4.16 

98.1 

3.1 

1.6 

2.20 

2.27 

2.00 

4.27 

94.1 

0.9 

0.5 

2.30 

2.37 

2.00 

4.37 

90.0 

5.0 

2.6 

2.40 

2.47 

2.00 

4.47 

86 2 

8.8 

4.7 

2.50 

2.58 

2.00 

4.58 

83.2 

11.8 

6.4 

2.60 

2.68 

2.00 

4.68 

80.0 

15.0 

8.3 

2.70 

2.78 

2.00 

4.78 

77.0 

18.0 

10.2 

2.80 

2.88 

2.00 

4.88 

74.3 

20.7 

11.9 

2.90 

2.99 

2.00 

4.99 

72.1 

22.9 

13.3 

3.00 

3.09 

2.00 

5.09 

69.7 

25.3 

14.9 


BOYS 


$0.90 

$0.93 

$1.20 

$2.13 

136.7 

41.7 

17.6 

1.00 

1.03 

1.20 

2.23 

123.0 

28.0 

12.5 

1.10 

1.13 

1.20 

2.33 

111.8 

16.8 

79 

1.20 

1.24 

1.20 

2.44 

103.3 

8.3 

4 1 

1.30 

1.34 

1.20 

2.54 

95.4 

0.4 

‘±•1 

0 9 

1.40 

1.44 

1.20 

2,64 

88.6 

6.4 

\J .L* 

3.4 


From the foregoing, eliminating for the moment an- 
nual earnings and considering only daily rates, it will 
be noted that a 1.3% increase on present rates would re- 
sult in an increase of 95% in the daily earnings of the con- 
tract miner as compared to 1914 ; and that an increase of 
14.9% to the highest rate day man would increase his 
daily earnings 95% as compared to 1914; while, in the 
case of the lowest rate day men, the compensation is now 
1^-6%, inside, and 12.7%, outside, in excess of a 95% in- 
crease in the cost of living. However, the average 
working time in 1914 was 245 nine-hour days and in 1919 
was 273 eight-hour days. In the year 1916 the working 
day was changed from nine hours to eight hours and a 
slightly higher rate established for the eight-hour day. It 
follows, therefore, that the opportunity for work in- 
creased liy 2 %, which practically compensated for any 
deficiency in rate to any class of employees when consid- 
ered in terms of annual earning capacity. 

Mr. Golden contended that the most that the high- 
est paid day wage man in his district could have earned, 
working every day that the mines were in operation in 
1919, was $1256.64 and the lowest rate man $908.48. 
Apparently these results were obtained by multiplying 
272 days by $4.62 for the high rate man and $3.34 for 
the low rate man. The statement is quite inaccurate 
and misleading; for there are many men in Mr. Golden’s 
district receiving more than $4.62 per day and there are 
comparatively few men receiving as little as $3.34 per 
day. Furthermore, it is a fact that most of the day 
workers have the opportunity for some overtime on 
days the colliery is in operation or have the opportunity 
to work on days the colliery is idle. A mere computa- 
tion of daily rate times an arbitrary number of days does 
not represent actual earning capacity. What the man 
really got in his pay envelope is clearly shown in the 
tabulation of annual earnings submitted herewith. 

The mine workers have contended that the contract 
miner received an increase of 7% on his contract rates 
in 1916 and a further increase of 40% in 1918, or a total 
of 49.8% over his 1914 rate, and that it was therefore 
illogical to credit him with an increase of 92.4% (which 
the actual earnings show) unless the difference could be 
attributed to increased efficiency; and that, unless a fur- 
ther increase was granted, he would be penalized for his 
effort. 


27 


In answer the operators submit that the advance 
of 49.8% was on the gross earnings, before deduction 
of powder and supplies ; and that, as the cost of powder 
and supplies was fixed by agreement at the pre-war price 
to the miner, the increase of 49.8% was really an increase 
of 55% on his net earnings, or his rate per day. In ad- 
dition the operators have found that there was an in- 
crease in opportunity within the day itself. This in- 
crease in opportunity can be attributed to the following 
general causes : 

1. The more extensive use of power in mining, thus in- 
creasing output per miner. 

2. The more extensive use of power in transportation, 
thus improving car supply to miner. 

3. The improvement in mechanical and electrical ap- 
pliances, thus facilitating mining and increasing out- 
put per miner- 

4. The improvement in mechanical appliances used in 
handling and preparation, thus reducing delays in 
operation. 

5. The provision in the agreement of May 5, 1916, 
stipulating eight hours’ work at the face. 

6. Modification in contract rates and allowances paid 
over contract rates where conditions did not permit 
of satisfactory earning capacity. 

The combined result of all of the factors that have 
entered into the situation has been to increase the aver- 
age daily earning capacity of the contract miner from 
$3.40 per day in 1914 to $6.54 per day in 1919 — an in- 
crease of 92.4%. Add to this the increase in working 
time and the actual increase in annual earnings was 
109.6%. These are the facts, arguments to the contrary 
notwithstanding, and should be given full weight in reach- 
ing conclusions. 

It is particularly indefensible to term the opportunity 
that has come to the contract miner to increase his daily 
earning capacity, a penalization. The theory advanced is 
that the contract miner has worked harder and more effi- 
ciently, thus increasing his daily earnings and that by 
withholding a larger increase in rate, which would permit 
of still greater earnings, effort and efficiency are not given 
proper reward. The operators might well argue that the 
opportunity existed for the same effort and efficiency in 
1916 and if the miner did not take advantage of that op- 

28 


portunity, he was withholding that which was due both 
himself and his employer. The operators claim that the 
contract miner today is not earning what he could earn 
by working a full eight hour and refer the Commission to 
the survey of the Department of Labor made in January, 
1919 (Monthly Labor Review, Vol. IX, No. 6, Dec. 1919, 
P. 211), which shows the average working time of the 
contract miners covered by the Survey as 6.8 hours per 
day, figured from the time they entered to the time they 
left the mine. The contract of May 5, 1916, at the time 
of the establishment of the eight-hour day, contained the 
following : 


‘‘THIRD: An 8-hour day means eight (8) hours of 
actual work for all classes of labor, at the usual working 
place, exclusive of noon-time, for six (6) days per week, 
if the operator desires to work his mines to that extent, 
excepting only legal holidays- The time required in 
going to and coming from the place of employment in 
or about the mine shall not include any part of the 
day’s labor.” 


One of the contentions of the mine workers has 
been that the wage of 1914 was inadequate and that an 
increase 'in excess of the increase in the cost of living 
should be granted to compensate for a deficiency in the 
base wage. To this the operators reply that the wage 
in 1914, both as to the rates paid common labor and the 
differentials between common labor, semi-skilled, and 
skilled labor, were entirely commensurate with the rates 
paid in other basic industries and the cost of living at that 
time; and that, therefore, any increase in excess of the 
cost of living would be special preferment to bring one 
class above another, with its resultant effect on the entire 
labor situation. In a word, it would place the anthracite 
industry at the peak of the spiral and other industries 
would be confronted with the request to advance wages 
once more and climb to meet the advance granted the 
anthracite workers. The inevitable result of such a 
situation would be that the worker would not benefit by 
the 'increase and that there would be a further increase 
in the cost of living. 

Taking one more phase of the controversy and 
measuring wages in the anthracite industry with wages 
paid in other basic industries in the same territory and 

29 


in adjoining territory where similar conditions of living 
and living costs obtain, the facts are as follows : 

City of Scranton and Vicinity — A canvass of the 
situation in this territory, located in the northern end of 
the anthracite field, with industries such as the Scranton 
Bolt & Nut Co., Scranton Forging Co., Scranton Pump 
Works, Scranton Stove Works, Finch Manufacturing Co., 
Maccar Truck Co., Spencer Heater Co., National Metal 
Trades Association, Hendrick Manufacturing Co., Cross 
Engineering Co. and Carbondale Machine Co., shows the 
following rates generally paid to the different classes of 
labor indicated : 


Common Labor . . 
Semi-skilled Labor 
Skilled Labor 


Minimum 
per hour 
38 cents 
44 “ 

54 “ 


Maximum 
per hour 
48 cents 
56 “ 

80 “ 


The foregoing are rates paid following adjustments 
made in April, 1920, and carry to April, 1921. 

City of Wilkes-Barre and Vicinity — The rates paid 
by other industries, such as the Vulcan Iron Works, Shel- 
don Axle Works, Hazard Manufacturing Qo., and by the 
Wilkes-Barre Railway Co., employing a total of more 
than 5,000 men, are as follows : 


Common Labor . . . 
Semi-skilled Labor 
Skilled Labor 


Minimum 
per hour 
42 cents 
46 “ 

52 “ 


Maximum 
per hour 
47 cents 
56 “ 

80 “ 


The foregoing are rates paid following adjustments 
made in April, 1920, and carry to April, 1921. 

City of Hazleton and Vicinity— The rates paid by 
other industries, such as the Wilmot Engineering Co., 
Hazleton Drop Forging Co., Gross Manufacturing Co.^ 
Benjamin Iron & Steel Co., Duplan Silk Co., and by the 
Harwood Electric Co. and the Wilkes-Barre & Hazleton 
Railway Co., are as follows : 


30 


Common Labor . . . 
Semi-skilled Labor 
Skilled Labor 


Minimum 
per hour 
37 cents 
41 “ 

53 “ 


Maximum 
per hour 
48 cents 
56 “ 

78 “ 


Pottsville, Reading and Vicinity— The rates paid by 
other industries in this territory, particularly in the iron 
and steel industry, and employing large numbers of men 
are as follows: 


Common Labor . . . 
Semi-skilled Labor 
Skilled Labor 


Minimum 
per hour 
37 cents 
44 “ 

54 “ 


Maximum 
per hour 
47 cents 
57 “ 

80 “ 


Allentown, Bethlehem and Vicinity— The rates paid 
by other industries in this territory, particularly the steel 
and cement industries, and employing large numbers of 
men are as follows : 


Common Labor . . . 
Semi-skilled Labor 
Skilled Labor .... 


Minimum 
per hour 
35 cents 
50 “ 

52 “ 


Maximum 
per hour 
45 cents 
60 “ 

78 “ 


The industries above named employ thousands of 
men and are in direct competition with the anthracite 
mines for labor. In comparison with the rates paid by 
them, the anthracite industry is now paying: 

Outside Inside 

cents per hour cents per hour 

To Common Labor 42 to 46 48 to 54 

To Other Day Labor 48 to 64 56 to 68 

To Contract Miners (average) 82 

It will be noted that the rates paid common labor 
compare very favorably with the rates now paid in other 
industries. It will also be noted that if the lower rates 
paid other day labor are compared to rates paid semi- 
skilled labor in other industries and the higher rates 
paid other day labor are compared to a mean of the 
skilled rates in other industries (which is a proper basis 
of comparison) the relationship is at once apparent. 
Furthermore, if the rate paid contract miners is com- 
pared to the rate paid the highest skilled labor in other 

81 


industries it will be found that the contract miner is re- 
ceiving fully as much as machinists, blacksmiths, boiler- 
makers, etc., in first-class shop work. 

In the light of the facts here presented the conclu- 
sion must be that rates now prevailing in the anthracite 
industry compare favorably with rates paid in other 
basic industries in the same section and with which the 
anthracite industry is in competition for labor ; and 
that, unless this fact be given proper weight in consider- 
ing any change, there is the probability of a most serious 
disturbance in the wage structure throughout the entire 
region in which the industry is located. 

At various times during the conferences the mine 
workers have referred to the differences in day rates 
in the anthracite and bituminous fields for the same 
class of labor. The contention through the negotiations 
was that the lower rates obtaining in the anthracite field 
were in themselves a sufficient argument for an increase 
and that the least that should be considered was $1.00 per 
day. In answer the operators have referred to the entirely 
different conditions obtaining in the two industries, and 
have shown that an increase of the same magnitude as 
that given the bituminous worker was both unnecessary 
and unwarranted. They have pointed out the difference 
that has always existed in the rates of day labor in the two 
fields and that was always recognized in past wage 
agreements. They have referred to the award of the 
Bituminous Commission and the arguments presented 
by the mine workers before that Commission as the 
best evidence of a difference in conditions which de- 
manded different treatment. They have contended that the 
award of the Bituminous Commission was predicated 
on lack of opportunity and that only on this theory could 
the advance granted, or the rates established thereunder, 
have been justified. In support of this contention the 
following is quoted from the majority report of the Bi- 
tuminous Commission, page 26 : 

“At the present time America requires less than 
500,000,000 tons of bituminous coal a year, while the 
capacity of the mines in operation is over 700,000,000 
tons. 

Under the stimulus of war demand many new mines 

were opened and many old ones expanded in order to 
secure sufficient coal to meet the exceptional and urj?- 

32 


ent national requirements. As a result, the coal in- 
dustry, which was speculatively overdeveloped before the 
war, is still more overdeveloped now and employs more 
capital and more labor than is necessary to supply the 
present needs of the country. 

“It is not to be expected that exports of coal will in- 
crease sufficiently to absorb a perceptible proportion of 
the gap between the demand for coal and the capacity 
of mines, as our shipping terminal facilities are such 
that not more than 25,000,000 tons of coal a year can at 
present be exported. 

“Full-time employment in the coal mines can not, 
therefore, be expected until the industry is put on such 
a basis that only those mines remain in operation whose 
output is required to supply the annual needs of the 

country.” 

It must be apparent from the foregoing that the 
Commission was influenced, in its findings, by the con- 
ditions that obtained, and that it found it necessary to 
establish daily rates, which applied to five-sevenths work- 
ing time, or a little over 200 days per year, would enable 
the employee to live, with some degree of comfort, dur- 
ing the full year of 365 days. 

On pages 15 and 16 of this submission reference is 
made to the comparative earnings of anthracite and bitu- 
minous workers. On page 22 a tabulation is given show- 
ing average earnings per annum of $1719 for contract 
miners, $1334 for inside day-men and $1409 for out- 
side day men — an average of $1509 for adult employ- 
ees. Contrast these figures with those given by Mr. 
White in his minority report as a member of the Presi- 
dent’s Bituminous Commission and note the difference 
in favor of the anthracite workers. 

Page 70. 

“The proposed increase will bring the yearly earn- 
ings that may be expected up to an average of only 
$1200 to $1300 and a maximum of only $1600 to $1700.” 

Page 80. 

“At rates prevailing in 1919 the actual annual earn- 
ings of pick miners in all bituminous mines were ap- 
proximately $1130, according to the comprehensive study 
made by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 
and published in the December, 1919, Labor Review. 
According to exhibits submitted by the operators them- 

33 


selves the average annual earnings of pick miners and 
loaders in the Northern Illinois district were, at 1918-19 
rates, under $1000 a year. Furthermore, these same 
exhibits show that if conditions had been such as to 
permit these men to work every day when the mines 
were in operation in 1918, they would have been able to 
earn not over $1200 per year; that if conditions had 
been such as to permit these men to work every day 
when the mines were open in 1919, when conditions were 
worse, their annual earnings would have been less than 
$1000; and that in less than one-third of the companies 
shown in the exhibit were the average monthly earnings 
of all occupations listed as high as $100, while in almost 
half the cases the average monthly earnings were be- 
low $80.” 

Mr. White was formerly President of the United 
Mine Workers of America and was the representative of 
the mine workers on the Bituminous Commission. He 
was undoubtedly familiar with conditions and spoke with 
knowledge and authority. Yet, in the face of his state- 
ment, Mr. Murray informs your Commission that it is 
necessary to increase contract rates 31% and day workers 
$1.00 to $2.65 per day in order to bring the earnings of 
anthracite workers to a parity with those in the bitumin- 
ous industry. 

Several exhibits have been presented at the hearings 
before this Commission on “The Cost of Living/- “A Liv- 
ing Wage,” “A Sanction for a Living Wage,” etc. The 
formal replies to these exhibits will be made in a separate 
paper or papers. 

On the general proposition that every industry should 
pay its employees a living wage there is no difference of 
opinion. The practicability of establishing, in any sort of 
concrete manner, a standard of a living wage and its ap- 
plication to individuals in various classes of employment, 
and with different standards of living, is a controversial 
matter in which we take a position directly opposed to 
the other parties to this submission. The anthracite ope- 
rators contend that they have been and are paying living 
wages to their employees and that in all of the agree- 
ments made with the mine workers, subsequent to the 
award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, due 
consideration has been given to conditions of living, the 
maintenance of health and comfort, and the general trend 
of wages in other industries, particularly those in 
the vicinity of the anthracite region. That the general 

34 


policy of a living wage has been upheld in the region is 
attested by (1) the general business prosperity, which 
reflects the prosperity of the employees of the dominant 
industry; by (2) the financial status of the banks, par- 
ticularly savings banks and banks having savings depart- 
ments; by (3) the patronage given to amusements and 
the time taken for recreation ; and by (4) the comfort in 
which all of the anthracite workers are able to live. There 
is no evidence of poverty or even of a “bare subsistence 
level” in the families of the employees of the anthracite 
industry. 

The impracticability of establishing a standard mini- 
mum or living wage on the basis of the family budget, 
and its relation to increase or decrease in the cost of 
living, will be considered in the formal replies to these 
exhibits. However desirable it may be that every worker 
shall be paid a wage commensurate with his reasonable 
needs for the support of himself and family, the value 
of the services performed must ever be an essential fac- 
tor in the preparation of a wage scale. The difference in 
the capacity and in the requirements of the individual, 
and the necessity for equal compensation for equal serv- 
ice make impracticable the establishment of a wage scale 
based on the “budget plan.” 

Summarizing the foregoing data and argument in 
reply to Demand No 2, the operators submit the fol- 
lowing : 


Conclusions. 

(1) That conditions in the anthracite and bitu- 
minous industries are not the same, either as to the 
character of the work or opportunity for employment, 
and that the increase granted the bituminous worker 
should not control as a basis of adjustment in the anth- 
racite field. 

(2) That the anthracite mines are on a basis of 
full-time operation. The average days worked were 285 
in 1917, 293 in 1918 and 273 in 1919. The lesser working- 
time in 1919 can be attributed entirely to the readjust- 
ment of markets following abrogation of Government 
control on February 1. As soon as this was accomplished 

35 


and in the coal year April, 1919, to March, 1920, the mines 
operated full time. 

(3) That, based on a comparison of rates paid in 
other industries in the same territory, for occupations 
requiring like skill and effort, no wage increase is war- 
ranted. 


(4) That, based on annual earnings, the increase 
in the cost of living has been fully met, and no further 
wage increase is warranted. 

(5) That, taking daily earnings instead of annual 
earnings as the basis of comparison, it would be neces- 
sary to increase contract miners only 1.3% over present 
rates, or 2.5% over the 1916 scale, to parallel a 95% in- 
crease in the cost of living. 

(6) That, taking the daily rates of day men instead 
of annual earnings as the basis of comparison, it would 
be necessary to increase the highest paid day labor 14.9% 
over present rates, or 24.6% over the 1916 scale, to paral- 
lel a 95% increase in the cost of living. The lowest 
paid day labor is now receiving a wage much in 
excess of the increase in the cost of living. The rela- 
tionship of daily wage to increase in the cost of living 
for any rate is clearly set forth in the tabulation on 
page 26 hereof. 

(7) That, in case any increase or adjustment is 
determined upon, it should be based on the 1916 scale, 
so that occupations paid similar rates at that time may 
receive similar rates under any new scale that may be 
established. 

(8) That, in case any increase or adjustment is de- 
termined upon, it should be on a percentage basis, and 
not a flat increase of the same amount per day to all 
classes of day labor. A flat increase, under present con- 
ditions, narrows the differential between the different 
classes of labor, giving due consideration to the pur- 
chasing power of the dollar, and lessens the incentive to 
advance from the lower paid occupations to those re- 
quiring greater skill and training. 

36 


DEMAND NO. 3. 


“(3) We demand that a uniform wage scale be 
established so that the various occupations of like 
character at the several collieries shall command the 
same wage.” 


In answer to this demand the operators submit that 
there are nearly 300 collieries in the anthracite field 
and that there are over 100 classifications of labor at a 
single colliery. It is conceded that there are minor varia- 
tions in rates paid day labor for the same class of em- 
ployment in different parts of the field. However, it is 
not a fact that because a different rate may be paid at 
adjoining operations to the same occupation, that there 
is necessarily some irregularity in compensation. It may 
well be that the duties and responsibilities of the posi- 
tions are entirely different and that a differential in rates 
may be fully justified. 


Mr. Kennedy states that the rates paid carpenters, 
blacksmiths, and others are less than those paid in other 
industries. It is true that carpenters receive a lesser rate 
than the skilled men in the building trades and that black- 
smiths may receive less than the more skilled man in in- 
dustries. However, the character of the work performed 
is far different and the carpenter has continuous employ- 
ment as compared to the seasonal employment in the 
building trades. 

The demand presented by the mine workers makes 
no reference to contract rates and it is difficult to under- 
stand why it has been brought into the discussion. 
It is well known that, while the rate per car, or 
per yard, may not be the same at different operations, 
or in different veins at the same operation, yet the rates 
in effect have been established with due reference to all of 
the conditions, and in one way or another, the miner is 
compensated for his work on a basis that nets a fair com- 
parative earning capacity. What would be accomplished 
by a readjustment of contract rates to some different 
basis if the result, in net earnings to the miner, remains 
the 'Same? While it may be desirable ultimately to se- 
cure greater uniformity in day rates, it would be impos- 
sible for this Commission, in the limited time at its dis- 


37 


posal, to tabulate and give proper consideration to a 
subject so complex and involving, as it does, a readjust- 
ment of rates throughout the entire field. In the nego- 
tiations the following was suggested by the Secretary of 
Labor and accepted by the operators as the only prac- 
ticable answer to this demand : 

“It is understood and agreed that the Board of 
Conciliation shall act as a Commission to make a study 
of, and report to the joint conference at the expiration 
of this contract, the matter of uniformity in day rates 
for the several occupations of day men at the respective 
collieries in the Anthracite field.” 

DEMAND NO. 4. 

“(4) We demand that shovel crews operating for 
coal companies shall be paid not less than the rates 
paid by contractors to shovel men.” 

This is a demand for a new basis of compensation, 
predicated on what others are paying, and without regard 
to the wage scales in effect, many of which date back to 
the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission and 
have been adjusted, as other wages have been adjusted 
since that time. If there is to be an equalization of wage, 
it would be just as logical for the operators to demand 
that the shovel crews of contractors, engaged in stripping 
operations, be paid the same rates as the coal companies 
are paying. 

Mr. Kennedy gave the rates paid in Kansas and 
New York as an example of rates in effect for shovel 
crews, without any reference to the character of the em- 
ployment or living conditions that may obtain in these 
particular localities. He furthermore presented rates paid 
by different companies in his district, without any refer- 
ence to the fact that the character of the equipment and 
intensity of work were far different. Again, in the case 
of the Dodson Coal Co. and the Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 
he submitted rates that are lower than the rates actually 
paid. 

The operators contend that, in many instances, the 
work and responsibility of the positions are not the same. 
The coal companies operate many small shovels for 
loading of coal and culm banks, while the contractors 

38 


operate only 70, 80, or 90-ton shovels, with the shovel 
engineer acting as supervisor of the work in the pit. 
However, eliminating all other contentions, the opera- 
tors submit that rates paid shovel crews have been 
established with due regard to the responsibilities of 
the positions, that the differentials between this class of 
labor and other classes are fair and equitable, and that no 
good reason can be shown for giving special considera- 
tion to men in this particular employment. 

DEMAND NO. 5. 

“(5) We demand that the eight hour day be ex- 
tended to all classes of inside and outside day labor and 
monthly men with time and half time for overtime and 
double time for Sundays and holidays.” 

Under the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt in 1902, 
a. work-day of 9 hours was established in the anthracite 
field. The following specific exceptions were made : 


Hoisting engineers on water shafts 8-hour day 

Firemen 8-hour day 

Other positions continuously manned. . .12-hour day 


Those employed on the 12-hour basis were to be “re- 
lieved from duty on Sundays, without loss of pay, by a 
man provided by the employer to relieve them during the 
hours of the day shift. ” 

This basis of operation continued until March, 1912, 
when, in compliance with a law r enacted by the Pennsyl- 
vania Legislature, hoisting engineers on shafts and 
slopes, handling both men aiid coal, were put on an 8- 
hour dav. 

There was no further change until May, 1916, when, 
by agreement, the 8-hour day was substituted for the 
9-hour day. However, in positions continuously manned, 
the 12-hour day was continued, except in the case of 
hoisting engineers, coming within the provisions of the 
8-hour law. 

There are approximately 3,000 men in the anthracite 
field employed on a basis of more than 8 hours per day. 
Almost three-fourths of this number are working 12 
hours and the balance 9 to 11 hours per day. The occu- 
pations, generally, are the following: 

39 


OUTSIDE: 

Hoisting Engineers 

Fan Engineers 

Power House Engineers 

Pumpmen 

Stablemen 

Watchmen 

INSIDE: 

Hoisting Engineers 

Pumpmen 

Stablemen 

The operators contend that the men employed in 
these occupations are engaged in work requiring little 
physical or mental effort and that they undergo no hard- 
ship in working a 12-hour day. The best corroboration 
of this statement is the fact that very few men take ad- 
vantage of the Sunday-off provision of the Anthracite 
Strike Commission and prefer to work every day, receiv- 
ing an extra days’ pay for Sunday work. The operators 
further contend that under present conditions, with a 
shortage of labor everywhere and the necessity for maxi- 
mum production on the part of the individual, it is un- 
wise and unnecessary that there be a readjustment in- 
volving the employment o'f 1500 additional men in work 
requiring so little physical or mental effort. 

In the discussion of this demand it was shown that 
the compensation of men working on a 12-hour basis had 
been fixed with regard to the longer shift and that it 
would be impracticable to place these men on an 8-hour 
basis at the same rate now being paid for 12 hours, with- 
out placing their wage completely out of line in compari- 
son with other occupations requiring greater skill and 
effort. This fact alone requires that this demand shall 
have most careful consideration ; for any decrease in 
annual earning power, under present conditions, might 
prove quite unsatisfactory to most of the men involved. 

In the matter of intensity of work, the following 
brief summary ol conditions may be of value: 

Hoisting Engineers — There are compara- 
tively few men, in this occupation, working a 12-hour 
day. Where the condition obtains it will be found that 
the real work is confined almost entirely to the day 

40 


shift. 1 he night shift has little to do and is employed 
largely to provide continuous 'service in case of any 
emergency. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Golden have referred 
to engineers, hoisting men and rock or men and timber 
and working a 12-hour shift as an attempt to evade the 
law. It is well known that where this condition obtains 
the men are working on tender shafts or slopes where 
the work is not constant or arduous and where it is no 
hardship to work a 12-hour day. 

Fan Engineers — These men are, in reality, oil- 
ers and are employed to watch and oil the fans while in 
operation. The position of fan engineer is one sought 
by hoisting engineers and others when they reach a point 
in life where they desire employment that requires little 
work. In this occupation the fact is that the man seeks 
the job and the operator does not have to seek the man. 

Power House Engineers — These men are 
employed to watch and oil air-compressors, generators, 
motor generating sets, and machinery of that general 
type. Their duties are confined to oiling and packing. 
They assist in repairs under the supervision of the col- 
liery machinist or colliery electrician. 

Pumpmen — These men are in charge of pumps 
while in operation and attend to the oiling and packing 
and replace worn parts when necessary. Mr. Golden has 
presented, in detail, a list of the duties of pumpmen in his 
district. One would infer that the work was most ardu- 
ous. The fact is, that while these duties may all be part 
of a competent pumpman’s work, most of them represent 
work performed only at long intervals of time. 

Stablemen — The duties of these men involve feed- 
ing of stock, care of the barns, and assistance in har- 
nessing and unharnessing. After the mules are out of 
the barn there is, in reality, insufficient work to keep them 
busy. It is a common practice to permit stablemen to 
go to their homes in the middle of the day and return 
in time to take care of the stock. 

Watchmen — The character of this employment 
is so well understood that little explanation is necessary. 
Suffice it to say that Mr. Kennedy’s expression that the 
men in this occupation are “constantly on the jump” 
hardly fits the case. 


41 


Embodied in Mr. Kennedy’s discussion of this de- 
mand is a plea that two breakers in his district that are 
now operating a 7-hour day should be compelled to work 
an 8-hour day. This is a local condition, brought about 
by insufficient coal for full-time operation, and is entirely 
irrelevant to the intent of this demand. 

The mine workers contend that it is a hardship for 
men, in the occupations named, to work a 12-hour day. 
The operators reply that the work is not arduous and 
that the positions are eagerly sought by men to whom 
the character of the employment appeals and who are 
quite willing to work the longer work-day. 

The operators admit there is a wide difference of 
opinion as to what shall constitute a work day under 
any and all conditions of employment. They contend, 
however, that if a day of more than 8 hours is appli- 
cable to any employment it is certainly applicable to 
those now working the longer workday in the anthracite 
field. It is true that they accepted the suggestion of the 
Secretary of Labor to place hoisting engineers and pump- 
men on an 8-hour day. However, this was only done in 
a spirit of compromise and in a last-hour effort to reach 
an agreement. The operators still contend that the char- 
acter of the employment makes the longer workday no 
hardship and that the demand is not entitled to favorable 
consideration. The suggestion of the Secretary of Labor 
follows : 


“It is understood and agreed that the case of in- 
side pumpmen and inside and outside hoisting engineers, 
working a twelve-hour cross shift, shall be referred to 
the Board of Conciliation. The Board shall work out 
a basis of eight-hour shifts and the rates to be paid 
for an eight-hour day. Pending the decision of the 
Board, inside pumpmen and inside and outside hoisting 
engineers working a twelve-hour cross shift shall con- 
tinue on that basis and shall be paid the same increase 
as provided for day men under Clause B hereof. When 
the rates to be paid for an eight-hour day have been 
established by the Board of Conciliation, time in excess 
of eight hours per day shall be paid for at the rate 
per hour established for the eight-hour day.” 


42 


We now come to the second portion of this demand, 
providing for time and half time for overtime and double 
time for Sundays and holidays. A request for punitive 
overtime was one of the demands submitted to the Bitu- 
minous Commission and refused in its finding. 

The anthracite industry cannot operate a full 8-hour 
day if every employee is limited to 8 hours work in any 
one day. The plant must be maintained at a proper 
standard for satisfactory service, and repairs cannot be 
made while breakers and other equipment are in opera- 
tion. If the maximum workday of the employee is limited 
to 8 hours, it must follow that the actual time of breaker 
operation will be less than 8 hours per day, with a re- 
sultant decrease in production and decrease in hours 
worked by all employees. 

Mr. Kennedy makes the statement that the operators 
want overtime, to show a high annual earning capacity 
for the employees. In support of this statement he has 
submitted pay checks of a carpenter who worked 700 
hours overtime in 31 semi-monthly pay periods. As a 
matter of fact, this represents, on the average, about 9^4 
hours per working day for a man in an occupation that 
carries as much overtime as any occupation at a colliery. 


Mr. Golden shows that 4467 outside laborers aver- 
aged 340 days of 8 hours. As a matter of fact thiis rep- 
resents but 9 hours per day for full time work. He fur- 
ther shows that 3673 inside laborers averaged 299 days of 
8 hours. Why shouldn’t a man work 299 days if he has 
the opportunity? Mr. Golden contends that because the 
breakers worked 273 days, the practice of working over- 
time was abused by working a man 299 days. The ope- 
rators fail to see the logic of such a contention. 

Mr. Dempsey says that men do not want to work 
overtime and that extra pay is demanded as a deterrent 
to overtime. The operators challenge the first state- 
ment and question the accuracy of the second. Thou- 
sands of men are not in favor of the 8-hour day and are 
only too glad oif the opportunity to work more. When- 
ever punitive overtime has resulted in no overtime there 
has been universal dissatisfaction. The real issue is more 
pay and not the elimination of overtime. 

43 


DEMAND NO. 6. 


“(6) We demand a closed shop contract, which 
means full recognition of the United Mine Workers of 
America as a party to the Agreement.” 

The operators understand from this demand that the 
mine workers ask for a contract embodying the prin- 
ciple of the “closed shop” and compulsory “check-off,” 
involving, as it does, enforced deductions from the 
worker’s wage of dues and assessments levied by the 
United Mine Workers of America. 

The relations between employer and employee in the 
anthracite field have for almost twenty years been gov- 
erned by the principles and practices established by the 
award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission ap- 
pointed by President Roosevelt and the decisions of the 
Board of Conciliation created thereunder. In the succes- 
sive contracts of 1906, 1909, 1912 and 1916 these prin- 
ciples and practices have been jointly affirmed and con- 
tinued. One of the pninciples established by the Com- 
mission and so long satisfactorily continued has been 
the “open shop,” embodying full protection to employees 
to organize as they may desire, and to safeguard the 
rights of their members before the Board of Conciliation 
against any employer who might seek to discriminate 
because of membership in a labor organization. Mem- 
bership in such labor organization must, however, be 
based upon the freedom of choice of the individual. 

For almost twenty years the Board of Conciliation 
has successfully adjusted all differences between employer 
and employee, and its work has received universal respect 
and approval. Its organization has been taken as a model 
in other industries. During this same time the anthra- 
cite mine workers’ organization has been fully protected 
in its rights under the award of the Anthracite Coal 
Strike Commission. The operators have no antagonism 
towards the organization of the mine workers, but are 
unwilling to substitute, for a tried and successful institu- 
tion, a plan embodying principles repugnant to the 
American principle of freedom o(f choice whether on the 
part of employee or employer, and involving, as it does, 
full compliance with whatever rules the organization 
may see fit to establish. The operators take the 

44 


position that the relations between employer and 
employee in the anthracite region should be continued 
on the principle of the “open shop” as set forth in the 
award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission to 
which the organized employees of the anthracite region 
have subscribed in the past, and under which their rights 
have been fully protected. 

Furthermore, the principle of the “open shop” has 
received the unqualified endorsement of the courts, both 
state and federal. The demand for an extension of the 
“check off” in the bituminous field was not granted by 
the President’s Commission and the question of fits con- 
tinuance where now imposed is to be investigated, by 
order of the Commission. 

In reply to a demand of a similar nature made before 
the Anthracite Strike Commission in 1902 by Mr. John 
Mitchell, representing the anthracite mine workers, that 
Commission said : 

“The Commission agrees that a plan, under which 
all questions of difference between the employer and his 
employees, shall first be considered in conference be- 
tween the employer or his official representative and a 
committee, chosen by his employees from their own 
ranks, is most likely to produce satisfactory results and 
harmonious relations, and at such conference the em- 
ployees should have the right to call to their assistance 
such representatives or agents as they may choose, and 
to have them recognized as such. 

“In order to be entitled to such recognition, the labor 
organization or union must give the same recognition to 
the rights of the employer and of others, which it de- 
mands for itself and for its members. The worker has 
the right to quit or to strike in conjunction with his fel- 
lows, when by so doing he does not violate a contract 
made by or for him. He has neither right nor license to 
destroy or to damage the property of the employer; 
neither has he any right or license to intimidate or to 
use violence against the man who chooses to exercise 
his right to work, nor to interfere with those who do 
not feel that the union offers the best method for ad- 
justing grievances. 

“The union must not undertake to assume, or to inter- 
fere with, the management of the business of the em- 
ployer. It should strive to make membership in it so 
valuable as to attract all who are eligible, but in its 


45 


efforts to build itself up, it must not lose sight of the 
fact that those who may think differently, have certain 
rights guaranteed them by our free government. How- 
ever irritating it may be to see a man enjoy benefits to 
the securing of which he refuses to contribute, either 
morally, or physically, or financially, the fact that he 
has a right to dispose of his personal services as he 
chooses, can not be ignored. The non-union man as- 
sumes the whole responsibility which results from his 
being such, but his right and privilege of being a non- 
union man are sanctioned in law and morals. The 
rights and privileges of non-union men are as sacred 
to them as the rights and privileges of unionists. The 
contention that a majority of the employees in an in- 
dustry, by voluntarily associating themselves, in a 
union, acquire authority over those who do not so asso- 
ciate themselves is untenable. 

“Those who voluntarily associate themselves, believe 
that in their efforts to improve conditions, they are 
working as much in the interest of the unorganized as 
in their own, and out of this grows the contention that 
when a non-union man works during a strike, he vio- 
lates the rights and privileges of those associated, in 
efforts to better the general condition, and in aspira- 
tions to a higher standard of living. The non-union 
man, who does not believe that the union can accom- 
plish these things, insists with equal sincerity that the 
union destroys his efforts to secure a better standard 
of living, and interferes with his aspirations for im- 
provement. The fallacy of such argument lies in the 
use of the analogy of State government, under which 
the minority acquiesces in the rule of the majority; but 
government is the result of organic law, within the 
scope of which no other government can assume au- 
thority to control the minority. In all acts of govern- 
ment the minority takes part, and when it is defeated 
the government becomes the agency of all, not simply 
of the majority. 

“It should be remembered that the trade union is a 
voluntary social organization, and, like any other or- 
ganization, is subordinate to the laws of the land and 
can not make rules or regulations in contravention 
thereof. Yet it at times seeks to set itself up as a 
separate and distinct governing agency and to con- 
trol those who have refused to join its ranks and to 
consent to its government, and to deny to them the per- 
sonal liberties which are guaranteed to every citizen 
by the constitution and laws of the land. The analogy, 
therefore, is unsound and does not apply. Abraham 
Lincoln said, ‘No man is good enough to govern another 
man without that other’s consent.’ This is as true in 


46 


trade unions as elsewhere, and not until those which 
fail to recognize this truth abandon their attitude tow- 
ard non-union men, and follow the suggestion made 
above — that is, to make their work and their member- 
ship so valuable and attractive, that all who are eli- 
gible to membership will come under their rule — will 
they secure that firm and constant sympathy of the 
public which their general purposes seem to demand.” 

It is quite difficult to reconcile the contentions ol 
the mine workers for the “closed shop” and “check-off” 
with the views so forcibly expressed above. We are told 
that the “closed shop” is necessary to make every em- 
ployee a party to the agreement, whereas the Commission 
denied the “closed shop” in no uncertain terms. In 
fact one of its findings was the following: 

“It is adjudged and awarded: That no person shall 
be refused employment, or in any way discriminated 
against, on account of membership or nonmembership 
in any labor organization; and that there shall be no 
discrimination against, or interference with, any em- 
ployee who is not a member of any labor organiza- 
tion by members of such organization.” 

We are told that the “check-off” is necessary to raise 
funds to carry out contractual relations, yet the Com- 
mission held that it was incumbent on any labor organ- 
ization “to make its work and its membership so attrac- 
tive that all who are eligible to membership will come 
under its rule” — not by force, but of their own free 
choice. 

The mine workers submitted a brief, prepared by 
their attorney, purporting to show that it was possible 
for the operators to collect union dues without infringe- 
ment of any statute. The operators have no interest in 
the legal phase of the situation. They are unalterably 
opposed to the “closed shop” and “check-off” for reasons 
clearly outlined. They are confident that this Commis- 
sion will sec fit to reaffirm the fundamental principles 
laid down by the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission and 
which have been so forcibly reiterated from time to time, 
in the opinions of our courts. 

The operators are not opposed to the principle of 
“collective bargaining,” or to periodical “trade agree- 
ments,” provided such agreements are conscientiously 
observed by both parties subscribing thereto. However, 
they believe that such contracts can be successfully en- 

47 


forced only by willing cooperation of both employer and 
employee. The “closed shop” can not insure control of 
the members of a labor union against their personal de- 
sires. In any wage agreement the influence of the union 
in upholding the “'Sanctity of contract” is purely moral — 
not legal — and depends for its success on the voluntary 
cooperation of its individual membership. 

DEMAND NO. 7. 

“(7) We demand that all dead work shall be paid 
for on the consideration basis, existing at the colliery, 
and that where more than one miner is employed they 
shall receive the same rate.” 

This is a demand where a miner is taken from con- 
tract work to perform other work that, irrespective of 
whether or not the work to be done is necessary to the 
continuance of hi'S contract, he shall be paid the con- 
sideration rate and not the company rate applying to the 
work on which he is temporarily employed. 

The operators contend that this demand is unfair 
and without justification. Great stress is laid on the 
fact that the miner has a certificate of competency as a 
contract miner. It is difficult to see wherein this affects 
the situation, for he is not performing the work contem- 
plated in his certificate. There is no reason why a con- 
tract miner, prevented from working on contract work, 
and asked to do repair work, should be paid any higher 
rate than that paid day men for doing exactly the same 
work. It may be that, temporarily, he will earn less per 
day than he would earn under his contract, but he will 
certainly earn more than if he went home and waited for 
the company men to make the necessary repairs. 

DEMAND NO. 8. 

“(8) We demand payment for all sheet iron, 
props, timber, forepolling and cribbing.” 

This demand as interpreted by Messrs. Dempsey 
and Golden, contemplates payment for certain specific 
items of work where the same are not now separately 
paid for. As interpreted by Mr. Kennedy, not only the 
question of payment, but the rates paid are involved. 
Mr. Kennedy contends that the rates are a “heritage of 
1902” and were established on an unfair basis; that the 


48 


umpire, in cases before the Conciliation Board, has sus- 
tained the rates as proper rates and “the men have been 
denied proper compensation.” 

Answering - Mr. Kennedy, the operators submit that 
the rates of 1902, following the award of the Anthra- 
cite Strike Commission, have been accepted as the base 
upon which all adjustments have been made since that 
time. In support of this contention the following is 
quoted from the agreement of May 20, 1912 : 

“(f) For the purpose of facilitating the adjust- 
ment of grievances, company officials at each mine shall 
meet with the grievance committee of employees and 
prepare a statement setting forth the rates of compen- 
sation paid for each item of work April 1st, 1902, to- 
gether with the rates paid under the provisions of this 
agreement and certify the same to the Board of Con- 
ciliation within sixty days after the date of this agree- 
ment." 

Under the circumstances and accepting the decision 
of the umpire, in what way have the men been denied 
proper compensation? If these rates are now to be sub- 
ject to readjustment, what foundation is left for the 
establishment of a new wage scale? Mr. Kennedy’s 
argument is entirely foreign to the purpose and intent 
of the demand, as expressed and as explained by Messrs. 
Dempsey and Golden. 

The operators contend that, in demanding separate 
payment for each specific item of work, the mine work- 
ers ignore the fact that all work of every kind is now 
paid for, in one form or another. It may be true that 
at certain operations payment for props, sheet iron, etc., 
is included in the price per car, per ton, or per yard, 
while at other operations these items are paid for separ- 
ately. However, this does not alter the fact that the 
work is paid for and any change in the system of pay- 
ment would involve a readjustment of the entire con- 
tract scale. The real purpose and intent of this demand 
is to secure additional compensation for the miner, sup- 
plemental to any adjustment which the Commission 
might see fit to make. 

DEMAND NO. 9. 

“(9) We demand where miners are prevented from 
working on account of lack of supplies that they shall 
be accorded the opportunity of making a shift at some 
other work.” 

This is a demand that if contract miners are unable 
49 


to work because of lack of materials ordinarily furnished 
by the operator and required in the conduct of the work, 
they shall be temporarily given other employment. This 
has always been the practice within reasonable limita- 
tions. The operators can not accept the principle the 
mine workers seek to establish that because a man is 
employed as a contract miner and reports for duty, he 
must, necessarily, be given work. However, they are 
willing that he should be given preference if other work 
is available and therefore concurred in the following 
suggestion of the Secretary of Labor in reply to this 
demand : 

“Whenever contract miners reporting for duty are 
shut out of work through no fault of their own, they 
shall be given the opportunity of working in other 
places, or at other work, at the rate of wages estab- 
lished for such other places, or such other work, if such 
other places or other work are available.” 

DEMAND NO. 10. 

“(10) We demand in the settlement of grievances 
that the aggrieved party shall have the right to demand 
settlement upon a basis of equity, and if such equity 
settlement is requested the conditions of 1902 shall not 
enter into or prejudice the case.” 

This demand contemplates that the mine workers 
shall have the right to present to the Conciliation Board 
during the term of a contract, the question as to whether 
any rate provided in such contract is or is not “equitable,” 
and that in the determination of their grievance the fact 
that the rate in question is an agreed rate, whether based 
on the award of 1902 or not, shall not prejudice their 
case. 

The proposed practice would undermine the very 
foundation of successful collective bargaining. The 
President’s Industrial Conference has well expressed the 
governing principles as follows : 

“Essential to the success of collective bargaining 
is a clear realization by both sides of the obligations it 
imposes, and of the limitations of these obligations. The 
collective bargain usually relates to standards only, such 
as the rate of wages to be paid, the hours to constitute 
a day’s work, and the conditions under which this work 
is to be performed. There is also usually a specified 
time during which the agreed standards are to be main- 
tained. The agreement imposes on the employer the 


50 


obligation to observe these standards if he provides 
work. It does not bind him to provide work. Similarly 
it imposes on employees the obligation to accept the 
agreed standards so long as they remain at work. It 
does not bind them to continue in employment.” 

Every agreement since 1902 has been based upon 
the rates and practices established by the Anthracite 
Coal Strike Commission. Each agreement has modified 
or supplemented this award either in general rates or in 
particular cases or practices. These agreements have 
been for definite terms and certainly, during such terms, 
the agreed rates should be the established standards 
which both parties are obligated to maintain, and by 
which the Board of Conciliation should judge and de- 
term disputes. It may be true, as Mr. Kennedy says, that 
“equity is one of the cardinal principles of the American 
Government,” but the determination of equity is in 
accordance with the Constitution and law of the land. 
Likewise, any determination in equity by the Board of 
Conciliation must be based on the terms and principles 
of the agreement to which both parties have subscribed. 

It may well be asked wherein would be the benefit 
to be derived from a contract which, if it embodied the 
provisions of this demand, would become no contract at 
all — if, instead of a fixed wage scale, insuring peace dur- 
ing the life of the contract, there should be inserted a 
provision that would permit any rate to be attacked, at 
any time, by either party, on the ground of inequity. The 
operators contend that the effect of granting this demand 
would be chaos, rather than the peace that should result 
from an agreement in which the obligation of both parties 
is clearly defined. 


DEMAND NO. 11 

“(11) We demand that a uniform rate of $.17 
per inch be paid for all refuse in all kinds of mining up 
to ten feet wide, and a proportional rate be applied for 
all over ten feet.” 

This demand is based on the theory that the miner 
is asked, within certain limitations, to separate the refuse 
in the vein from the coal, before loading, and that he 
should therefore be compensated for his labor. It ig- 
nores the fact that he is now being paid for this very 
work — either by payment of a fixed price per yard, ac- 

51 


cording to thickness of refuse, or by a yardage price on 
the rib, or by a car or ton price that includes payment 
for the refuse in the vein which the miner is required to 
handle. The bases of payment now in effect have long 
been established with reference to each vein and the 
particular condition in that vein and have been fixed to 
produce a fair and reasonable compensation. 

It is asserted that the proposed rate of 17 cents per 
inch for ten feet in width is fair and reasonable. As a 
matter of fact this rate is fully four times what is now 
generally paid in chamber work for refuse in the vein, 
where refuse is separately paid for. This Commission 
could not consider any change in the basis of payment 
without securing, in detail, the conditions that obtain at 
each operation and the rates paid. The operators con- 
tend that such survey would show that the miner is now 
being compensated for refuse handled as previously 
explained and that there is no justification for this de- 
mand. The real intent is to secure additional compensa- 
tion for the miner, supplemental to any other adjustment 
the Commission might see fit to make. 

DEMAND NO. 12. 

“(12) We demand that wherever miners are now 
paid on -the car basis that hereafter they shall be paid 
on the legal ton basis and that dockage shall be elimi- 
nated.” 

This demand as to payment by the ton, instead of 
the car, was presented to the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission in 1902 and has been one of the demands 
before every Joint Conference since that time. The fol- 
lowing is quoted from the award of the Commission: 

“Any measure of work performed, as a basis for 
payment, must in a certain sense be arbitrary. Pay- 
ment by the car, by the ton, or by the yard, is the re- 
sult of an agreement between presumably intelligent 
parties, and all the circumstances attending either 
method are matters for their consideration. If a miners’ 
ton of 28 hundred-weight is taken as the basis of pay- 
ment, the price for such ton is fixed with reference to 
its size. So of payment by the car or by the yard.” 

* * * * 

“The Commission is not now prepared to say, that 
the change to payment by weight, based on a 2,240 
pound ton, when the price would necessarily be ad- 
justed to the number of pounds — practically the case 


52 


now — would prove of sufficient benefit to the miners to 
compensate for the expense and trouble thereby im- 
posed upon operators now paying by the car. Many 
of the operators, in order to accommodate themselves 
to the change, would have to reconstruct the breakers, 
or place the scales at the foot of the shaft, and, when 
there is more than one level in the mine, at the foot 
of each level.” 

The same argument holds good today, except that 
the more extensive development of the collieries makes 
the problem more complex. It is difficult to see wherein 
the miner expects to benefit by such a change, unless it is 
hoped that the ton price would be fixed on a basis that 
would give a greater return than the present car price. 
If this was done the whole question of miners’ wages 
would be thrown into confusion. The operators contend 
that there is no reason wKy a car of fixed capacity does 
not constitute a basis of payment just as equitable as 
payment by weight. The bulk off the coal mined since 
the inception of the industry has been paid for by the car 
or the yard. 

Dockage is a penalty imposed for insufficient load- 
ing or excessive refuse in the mine car. The contention 
is made that cars have to travel long distances and that 
the coal is shaken down to such extent that the miner is 
docked for light loading. No reference is made to dock- 
age for excessive refuse. 

The fact is that, after a car has traveled a short dis- 
tance, the coal reaches a permanent bed, and further set- 
tlement is not appreciable, irrespective of the length of 
haul. In the matter of dockage ffor refuse, a car of abso- 
lutely clean coal is not expected or demanded, but it is 
understood that there shall be no more refuse than the 
prescribed rules at the colliery allow, based on the con- 
ditions that obtain in the mining of the coal. 

Dockage for cars improperly loaded is therefore a 
reasonable penalty imposed on the miner and has been 
in effect since the beginning of the industry. The sub- 
ject was given careful consideration by the Anthracite 
Strike Commission, and to protect the miner against any 
unfair practice, the Commission made the following 
award : 

“That whenever requested by a majority of the 
contract miners of any colliery, check weighmen or 
check docking bosses, or both, shall be employed. The 

53 


wages of said check weighmen and check docking bosses 
shall be fixed, collected, and paid by the miners, in such 
manner as the said miners shall by a majority vote 
elect, and when requested by a majority of said miners, 
the operators shall pay the wages fixed for check 
weighmen and check docking bosses, out of deductions 
made proportionately from the earnings of the said min- 
ers, on such basis as the majority of said miners shall 
determine.” 


With this protection to the miner, it is difficult to 
understand why a demand of this kind is made. 

DEMAND NO. 13 

“(13) We demand that on all reel motors one mo- 
torman and two brakemen be employed and that on all 
other motors and engines assistants or patchers be em- 
ployed and that when motormen or engineers are re- 
pairing their motors or engines that their assistants 
shall be employed to help in the work.” 

This demand is an effort to take out of the hands of 
the management the authority to determine the number 
of men required and arbitrarily to fix the number to be 
employed on reel motors, irrespective of conditions or 
the amount of work involved in the particular location in 
which the men are working. It furthermore provides that 
assistants are to be employed on repairs, irrespective of 
whether they may be competent or whether their 
services may be actually required. The nature of the 
demand and its effect on efficient management requires 
no comment. 


DEMAND NO. 14 

“(14) We demand that for all tools lost through 
no fault of employees as a result of squeezes, water, or 
fire, the men to be compensated for such losses.” 

This is a minor demand, and at the suggestion of the 
Secretary of Labor, the following was accepted by the 
operators in answer thereto: 

“Contract miners, whose tools are lost through no 
fault of their own as the results of squeezes, cave-ins, 
and similar accidents, shall be furnished with new tools 
by the company, corresponding to the tools lost, without 
expense to the miner.” 


54 


DEMANDS NOS. 15 AND 16 


“(15) Where contract miners are employed doing- 
company work the company shall supply them with the 
necessary tools and failing to do so, shall compensate 
the miners by paying each miner not less than one 
extra hour per day for the use of such tools.” 

“(16) We demand that the company shall supply 
to all company men the necessary tools free of charge.” 

Demand No. 15 is a demand to change an established 
practice. It would be quite impracticable to supply tools 
to contract miners whenever engaged in company work ; 
nor should extra compensation be paid for use of the 
miner’s tools, as we will later show. Demand No. 15 
should be considered in conjunction with Demand No. 
16, for the two are interwoven, and any conclusion 
reached as to one necessarily affects the other. 

Demand No. 16 provides “that the company shall 
supply to all company men the necessary tools free of 
charge.” The practice in this respect is not uniform 
throughout the field. With many companies the com- 
pany men have always been required to furnish all tools 
except special tools. This was considered in estab- 
lishing the rates paid and was prompted by the fact 
that, under the conditions of employment, it was prac- 
tically impossible for the management to look after tools. 
It was the intent that by having the employee furnish his 
own tools the responsibility for loss and for proper care 
would attach where it rightly b( longs. 

Reverting to Demand No. 15, it will be seen that 
if the company men furnish their own tools, there is no 
reason why the contract miner, engaged in company 
work, should be furnished tools or receive extra com- 
pensation for the use of his own tools. 

The purpose of this demand is further to increase 
wages to the extent that the miner and company men 
may be relieved from purchasing tools. The operators 
submit that if wages are found to be inadequate, the 
same should be adjusted in the light of established con- 
ditions and practices and that a wage increase should not 
be supplemented by favorable consideration of demands 
of this character. 

55 


b 


DEMAND NO. 17 


“(17) We demand that checkweighrnen and check 
docking bosses be permitted to serve as members of 
mine committees.” 

The demand that checkweighrnen and check docking- 
bosses shall be eligible to membership on mine com- 
mittees is in contravention of clause (d) of the agree- 
ment of May 20, 1912, wherein it was provided that the 
grievance committee at each colliery should be composed 
of three employees. In June, 1917, the check docking 
boss at Pyne Colliery, filed a case before the Conciliation 
Board asking that the D., L. & W. R. R. Co. be compelled 
to recognize him as a member of the grievance committee 
of that colliery. This case was referred to Chas. P. Neill, 
umpire. The decision of the umpire sustained the posi- 
tion of the company and held that check docking bosses 
were not employees and therefore not eligible to member- 
ship on grievance committees. The demand, as here pre- 
sented, is, therefore, an effort to write into a contract that 
which has already been a matter of adjudication and in 
which the mine workers lost their case. 

The operators submit that a grievance committee at 
each colliery was made part of the 1912 agreement, only 
with the distinct understanding that its members were to 
be employees at that colliery. The check docking boss 
is not, in any sense, an employee of the operator. Under 
the circumstances, it would be a direct violation of the 
spirit and intent of the agreement of 1912 to admit him 
to membership on the colliery committee. 

DEMAND NO. 18. 

“(18) We demand that where contract miners en- 
counter abnormal conditions in their working places 
they shall have the privilege of going on consideration 
work. A definition of consideration work shall be writ- 
ten into the agreement.” 

This demand was the subject of much discussion dur- 
ing the negotiations, and at the suggestion of the Secre- 
tary of Labor, the following was accepted by the opera- 
tors as representing a proper answer to this demand : 

“Whenever deficient or abnormal conditions are en- 
countered in a working place by contract miners, the 
miner or miners affected shall make such fact known to 
the foreman, and if the foreman and the man affected 




56 


are unable to agree, it shall be referred to the grievance 
committee and dealt with in the manner provided for 
other grievances. Work shall be continued pending the 
adjustment unless otherwise directed by the foreman, 
and whatever decision is made shall be retroactive to 
the date upon which the grievance was raised.” 

In submitting the foregoing data and argument, the 
operators do so with full confidence that the Commission 
will find, in its pages, a satisfactory basis for adjudication 
of the matters in dispute. Every effort has been made to 
outline the situation clearly, so that, in arriving at con- 
clusions, there can be no opportunity for a misunder- 
standing of the points in controversy. The operators 
are confident the record will show that they were at all 
times willing and anxious to reach an amicable settle- 
ment with the miners’ representatives; that the conces- 
sions offered were extremely liberal in the face of the 
facts ; and that they could have gone no further, in justice 
to the miners themselves, the public, and the industry. 

For the Anthracite Operators, 

S. D. Warriner. 

W. J. Richards 

C. F. Huber 


57 




























LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 019 837 178 6 


